U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Information
Collection
Request
for
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
Phase
III
Proposed
Rule
November
24,
2004
i
November
24,
2004
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1a.
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1b.
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a.
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a(
i).
Need
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
2a(
ii).
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
2b.
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3a.
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3b.
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3c.
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
3d.
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3e.
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3f.
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
3g.
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
4a.
Respondents/
SIC
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
4b.
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
4b(
i).
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
4b(
ii).
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
5.
The
Information
Collected
 
Agency
Activities,
Collection,
Methodology
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
5a.
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
5b.
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
5c.
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
5d.
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
6.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
6a.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
Facility
Burdens
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
ii
November
24,
2004
6b.
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
6b(
i).
Estimating
Labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
6b(
ii).
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
6c.
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
6d.
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
6e.
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
86
6e(
i).
Respondent
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
86
6e(
ii).
Agency
Tally
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
6f.
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
6g.
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
89
APPENDIX
A
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Analysis
for
the
Information
Collection
Requirements
of
Phase
III
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
APPENDIX
B
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Analysis
for
the
Information
Collection
Requirements
of
Phase
III
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions:
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
Exhibit
2.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
for
Phase
III
Proposed
Rule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
Exhibit
3.
Facility
Activities
for
Phase
III
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
Exhibit
4.
Facility
Activities
for
Phase
III
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
(
Track
I
Applications)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
Exhibit
5.
Number
of
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection:
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
Exhibit
6.
Number
of
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection:
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
Exhibit
7.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
iii
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
8.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
Exhibit
9.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
Exhibit
10.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
Exhibit
11.
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Sample
Types
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
Exhibit
12.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
Exhibit
13.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
Exhibit
14.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
Exhibit
15.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
Exhibit
16.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
78
Exhibit
17.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
Exhibit
18.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
Exhibit
19.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
80
Exhibit
20.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
81
Exhibit
21.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
Exhibit
22.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
iv
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
23.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
83
Exhibit
24.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
83
Exhibit
25.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
84
Exhibit
26.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
85
Exhibit
27.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
State
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Exhibit
28.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
EPA
Regional
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
87
Exhibit
29.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
Existing
Manufacturers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
Exhibit
30.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
88
1
November
24,
2004
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1a.
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
TITLE:
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
at
Phase
III
Facilities
(
Proposed
Rule)

U.
S.
EPA
ICR
NUMBER:
2169.01
1b.
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
The
section
316(
b)
proposed
regulations
for
Phase
III
facilities
would
require
the
collection
of
information
from
existing
point
source
manufacturing
facilities
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
withdrawn
for
cooling
purposes
and
whose
design
intake
flow
equals
or
exceeds
one
of
the
three
proposed
threshold
values
of
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
for
all
waterbodies;
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies;
or
100
MGD
for
oceans,
estuaries,
tidal
rivers
or
one
of
the
Great
Lakes
(
certain
waterbodies).
The
proposed
rule
also
would
require
collection
of
information
from
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
which
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes,
and
have
design
intake
flows
greater
than
2
MGD.
Section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
requires
that
any
standard
established
under
section
301
or
306
of
the
CWA
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
must
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
at
that
facility
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Such
impact
occurs
as
a
result
of
impingement
(
where
fish
and
other
aquatic
life
are
trapped
on
technologies
at
the
entrance
to
cooling
water
intake
structures)
and
entrainment
(
where
aquatic
organisms,
eggs,
and
larvae
are
taken
into
the
cooling
system,
passed
through
the
heat
exchanger,
and
then
pumped
back
out
with
the
discharge
from
the
facility).
The
proposed
rule
establishes
requirements
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
III
existing
facilities
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
These
requirements
seek
to
establish
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).

Today's
proposed
rule
would
establish
requirements
consistent
with
Phase
II
for
existing
facilities
and
requirements
under
Subpart
N
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
2
November
24,
2004
EPA
chose
the
three
design
intake
flow
thresholds
to
focus
the
proposed
rule
on
the
largest
existing
manufacturers.
The
three
thresholds
proposed
are
reasonable
because
they
address
a
substantial
percentage
of
the
cooling
water
flow
withdrawn
by
existing
manufacturers.
EPA
believes
the
regulation
of
existing
manufacturers
with
flows
equal
to
or
exceeding
the
three
threshold
design
intake
flows
in
Phase
III
will
address
those
existing
facilities
with
the
greatest
potential
to
cause
or
contribute
to
adverse
environmental
impact.
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
EPA
chose
to
apply
requirements
under
§
125.133
of
the
proposed
rule
(
consistent
with
Phase
I
under
§
125.83)
to
address
a
substantial
percentage
of
the
cooling
water
flow
withdrawn
by
these
new
facilities.

As
in
the
Phase
II
final
rule,
in
today's
proposed
Phase
III
rule,
an
existing
facility
would
be
required
to
choose
one
of
the
following
five
compliance
alternatives
for
establishing
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
at
the
site:

1.
i.
Demonstrate
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
its
flow
commensurate
with
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system.
In
this
case,
the
facility
will
not
be
required
to
demonstrate
further
that
it
meets
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
performance
standards.
In
addition,
the
facility
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
in
§
125.104,
§
125.105,
§
125.106
or
§
125.107.
However,
the
facility
may
still
be
subject
to
any
more
stringent
requirements
established
under
§
125.103(
e);
or
ii.
Demonstrate
that
it
has
reduced,
or
will
reduce,
its
maximum
through­
screen
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
feet
per
second
or
less.
In
this
case
,
the
facility
will
not
be
required
to
demonstrate
further
that
it
meets
the
performance
standards
for
impingement
mortality
and
is
not
subject
to
the
impingement
requirements
in
§
125.104,
§
125.105,
§
125.106
or
§
125.107.
However,
the
facility
may
still
be
subject
to
any
applicable
requirements
for
entrainment
mortality
and
may
still
be
subject
to
any
more
stringent
requirements
established
under
§
125.103(
e);

2.
Demonstrate
that
its
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.103(
b)
and/
or
the
restoration
requirements
in
§
125.103(
c);

3.
Demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
selected
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that
will,
in
combination
with
any
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
meet
the
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.103(
b)
and/
or
the
restoration
requirements
in
§
125.103(
c);

4.
Demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
installed,
or
will
install,
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
an
approved
design
and
construction
technology
in
accordance
with
§
125.108(
a)
or
(
b).
or,
3
November
24,
2004
5.
Demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
selected,
installed,
and
is
properly
operating
and
maintaining,
or
will
install
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
determined
to
be
the
best
technology
available
for
the
facility
in
accordance
with
§
125.103(
a)(
5)(
i)
and
(
ii).

For
compliance
alternative
5,
the
facility
would
be
required
to
meet
one
of
two
cost
tests:
1)
demonstrate
that
costs
of
compliance
under
alternatives
1­
4
would
be
significantly
greater
than
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
for
a
similar
facility,
or
2)
demonstrate
that
costs
of
compliance
under
alternatives
1­
4
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
at
the
facility.

The
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
would
require
several
distinct
types
of
information
collection
as
part
of
the
NPDES
application.
In
general,
the
information
will
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
performance
requirements
in
the
rule
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
plans
to
meet
these
requirements,
and
to
assess
compliance
with
the
performance
requirements.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
all
facilities
are:

°
Source
water
physical
data
which
shows
the
physical
configuration
of
all
source
waterbodies
used
by
the
facility,
identifies
and
characterizes
the
source
waterbody's
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features,
and
provides
location
through
maps.

°
Cooling
water
intake
structure
data
which
shows
the
configuration
and
location
of
cooling
water
intakes
structures,
provides
details
on
the
design
operation
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
diagrams
flow
distribution
and
water
balance.

Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
only
to
existing
manufacturers
and
not
be
required
by
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are:

°
Cooling
water
system
data
that
characterizes
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
system
and
its
relationship
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

°
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
with
Track
II
applications
will
perform
and
submit
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study)

Most
Phase
III
existing
facilities
(
except
those
facilities
meeting
the
requirements
of
compliance
alternative
(
1)(
i),
would
conduct
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
Study)
that
characterizes
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
structure(
s),
characterizes
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake(
s),
and
confirms
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
meet
the
applicable
national
performance
standards
specified
in
§
125.103.
The
proposed
rule
would
require
that
4
November
24,
2004
Phase
III
existing
facilities
submit
the
information
required
for
the
Study
consistent
with
the
compliance
alternative
selected.
Facilities
that
meet
the
requirements
in
§
125.103(
a)(
1)(
ii)
by
reducing
their
design
intake
velocity
to
0.5
feet
per
second
or
less
would
be
required
to
only
submit
a
Study
for
the
entrainment
requirements,
if
applicable.
Facilities
that
meet
the
requirements
in
§
125.103(
a)(
4)
and
have
installed
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
an
approved
design
and
construction
technology
(
in
accordance
with
§
125.108)
would
be
required
to
submit
only
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
and
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
Facilities
that
would
be
required
to
meet
only
impingement
mortality
reduction
requirements
in
§
125.103(
b)(
1)
would
be
required
to
submit
only
a
Study
for
the
impingement
mortality
reduction
requirements.
The
Study
would
include
the
following
data
requirements.

°
Proposal
for
information
collection
that
describes
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
study,
describes
any
historical
studies
that
are
proposed
to
be
used
in
the
study,
summarizes
any
past,
ongoing,
or
voluntary
consultation
with
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
(
including
a
copy
of
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
such
consultation),
and
provides
a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
proposed
to
be
conducted.

°
Source
waterbody
flow
information
to
support
the
determination
of
whether
the
facility
exceeds
proportional
flow
thresholds
(
i.
e.,
whether
the
facility
withdraws
more
than
a
certain
proportion
of
source
waterbody
flow),
including
the
annual
mean
flow
for
intakes
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams,
and
a
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification
for
intakes
located
in
lakes
or
reservoirs.

°
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
that
provides
information
to
support
the
development
of
a
calculation
baseline
for
evaluating
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
and
to
characterize
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.

°
Technology
and
compliance
assessment
information
that
explains
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
that
are
in
place
or
have
been
selected
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
calculates
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
selected
technologies
and
operational
measures,
and
demonstrates
that
the
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
have
been
selected
to
reflect
best
technology
available
at
the
site.
This
information
includes
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
possibly
a
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan.

°
Restoration
Plan
(
if
the
facility
proposes
to
use
restoration
measures)
that
describes
the
restoration
measures
that
are
proposed
to
be
implemented;
quantifies
the
combined
benefits
from
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures;
presents
a
plan
for
implementing
and
5
November
24,
2004
maintaining
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures;
and
summaries
of
consultations
with
appropriate
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies;
design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings
and
maps;
and
a
final
report
from
an
independent
peer
review
of
materials
submitted.

°
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
that
describes
the
monitoring
that
will
be
used
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures.

Additional
data
requirements
would
apply
to
facilities
that
choose
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Specific
data
requirements
that
would
apply
to
these
facilities
include:

°
Comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
that
documents
the
cost
of
implementing
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
the
costs
of
the
alternative
technologies
and
operational
measures
that
the
facility
proposes
to
implement
at
the
site.

°
Benefits
valuation
study
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment
that
uses
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements.

°
A
narrative
description
of
any
non­
monetized
benefits
that
would
be
realized
at
the
facility
if
it
was
to
meet
the
performance
standards
and
a
qualitative
assessment
of
their
magnitude
and
significance.

°
Site­
specific
technology
plan
that
describes
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
(
existing
and
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
selected;
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies;
and
demonstrates
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
or
restoration
measures
selected
would
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
to
the
extent
necessary
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
§
125.103;
and
includes
design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
plan.

Under
today's
proposed
rule,
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
the
Track
I
or
Track
II
application
requirements
consistent
with
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
and
§
125.136(
b)
or
§
125.136(
c),
respectively,
of
the
proposed
rule.
This
includes
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data,
velocity
information,
source
waterbody
flow
information,
and
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
for
Track
I
applications
and
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
and
source
waterbody
flow
information
for
Track
II
applications.

In
addition
to
the
information
requirements
of
the
NPDES
permit
application,
NPDES
permits
normally
specify
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
conducted
by
the
6
November
24,
2004
permitted
entity.
Monitoring
would
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
required
by
§
125.104(
b)(
7),
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
required
by
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii),
if
applicable,
the
Restoration
Plan
required
by
§
125.104(
b)(
5),
and
any
additional
monitoring
specified
by
the
Director
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.103.
The
results
of
each
facility's
monitoring
efforts
would
be
reported
biennially
to
the
Director
in
a
status
report.

Finally,
facilities
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of
all
submitted
documents,
supporting
materials,
and
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years
(
or
as
directed
by
the
Director).
Facilities
would
also
be
required
to
perform
a
verification
study
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
meeting
the
required
level
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction,
as
appropriate.

Under
today's
proposed
rule,
an
authorized
State
would
update
programs
to
be
consistent
with
the
final
cooling
water
intake
requirements
or
may
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
in
its
NPDES
program
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
under
§
125.103.
Following
review,
the
Director
would
approve
alternative
regulatory
requirements.
State
Directors
are
required
to
also
review
all
materials
submitted
to
them
by
the
facilities
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
regulation,
confirm
compliance
with
the
rule,
and
issue
NPDES
permits
with
appropriate
conditions
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
associated
with
the
use
of
the
facilities'
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).

As
suggested,
the
primary
users
of
the
data
collected
under
the
proposed
rule
would
be
States
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program,
and
the
EPA.
It
is
anticipated
that
other
government
agencies,
both
at
the
State
and
Federal
level,
as
well
as
public
interest
groups,
private
companies,
and
many
individuals
will
also
use
the
data.

Under
the
proposed
50
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option
for
existing
manufacturers,
during
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
information
collection
required
would
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
56
facilities
and
46
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
35
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),
with
an
annual
average
of
81
respondents,
202,486
burden
hours,
and
$
11.7
million
per
year
(
for
additional
detail
see
Section
6
and
Exhibit
A.
50MGD.
11
in
Appendix
A).

Under
the
proposed
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option
for
existing
manufacturers,
during
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
information
collection
required
would
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
13
facilities
and
46
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
9.5
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),
with
an
annual
average
of
29
respondents,
48,880
burden
hours,
and
7
November
24,
2004
$
3.2
million
per
year
(
for
additional
detail
see
Section
6
and
Exhibit
A.
200MGD.
11
in
Appendix
A).

Under
the
proposed
100
MGD
for
certain
waterbodies
option
for
existing
manufacturers,
during
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
information
collection
required
would
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
11
facilities
and
46
States
and
Territories
and
cost
approximately
$
13.2
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),
with
an
annual
average
of
33
respondents,
72,223
burden
hours,
and
$
4.4
million
per
year
(
for
additional
detail
see
Section
6
and
Exhibit
A.
100MGD.
11
in
Appendix
A).

For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
during
the
first
three
years
after
rule
promulgation
of
the
proposed
rule,
the
information
collection
required
would
involve
responses
from
an
estimated
total
of
31
facilities
and
three
EPA
Regions
and
cost
approximately
$
3.7
million
(
including
operation
and
maintenance
costs),
with
an
annual
average
of
25
respondents,
13,399
burden
hours,
and
$
1.2
million
per
year
(
see
Section
6
and
Exhibit
B.
11
in
Appendix
B
for
additional
detail).
1
This
volume
is
only
from
existing
manufacturers
with
a
design
intake
flow
of
50
MGD
or
more.

2
EPA
2000.
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaire:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Wastewater
Management,
Washington,
D.
C.
OMB
Control
No.
2040­
0213.

8
November
24,
2004
2.
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2a.
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
following
sections
describe
the
need
for
this
information
collection
and
the
legal
authority
under
which
this
information
will
be
collected.

2a(
i).
Need
for
the
Collection
The
information
requirements
of
today's
proposed
rule
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
existing
facilities
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
comply
with
the
proposed
rule's
provisions,
and
thereby
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
impingement
and
entrainment
losses
due
to
the
withdrawal
of
cooling
water.
There
is
substantial
evidence
that
existing
cooling
water
intake
structures
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
nearby
environment.
There
is
also
evidence
that
current
systems
are
not
using
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact,
and
that
a
national
regulatory
approach
is
justified.

Evidence
that
Significant
Environmental
Impact
is
Occurring
as
a
Result
of
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
EPA
estimates
that
Phase
III
facilities
under
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
have
the
potential
to
withdraw
on
average
more
than
28
billion
gallons1
of
cooling
water
a
day
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
2
The
withdrawal
of
such
large
quantities
of
cooling
water
in
turn
affects
large
quantities
of
aquatic
organisms
including
phytoplankton
(
tiny,
free­
floating
photosynthetic
organisms
suspended
in
the
water
column),
zooplankton
(
small
aquatic
animals,
including
fish
eggs
and
larvae,
that
consume
phytoplankton
and
other
zooplankton),
fish
and
shellfish.
Aquatic
organisms
drawn
into
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
either
impinged
on
components
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
or
entrained
in
the
cooling
water
system
itself.

Impingement
takes
place
when
organisms
are
trapped
against
intake
screens
by
the
force
of
the
water
being
drawn
into
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
velocity
forces
of
the
water
withdrawal
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
can
prevent
proper
gill
movement,
remove
fish
scales,
and
cause
other
physical
damage.
Impingement
can
3
EPA.
2004.
Chapter
A7:
Entrainment
Survival,
Case
Study
Analysis
for
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
Existing
Facilities
Rule.

4
This
total
includes
cooling
water
intakes
designed
to
take
2
MGD
or
more.

9
November
24,
2004
causes
the
physical
harm
or
death
of
affected
organisms
through
exhaustion,
starvation,
asphyxiation,
and
descaling.
Death
from
impingement
can
occur
immediately
or
subsequently
after
an
organism
is
returned
to
the
waterbody
as
it
succumbs
to
physical
damage.

Entrainment
occurs
when
organisms
are
drawn
through
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
into
the
cooling
system.
Organisms
that
become
entrained
are
normally
relatively
small
aquatic
organisms,
including
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
Many
of
these
small
organisms
serve
as
prey
for
larger
organisms
higher
on
the
food
chain
which
tend
to
be
commercially
and
recreationally
desirable
species.
As
entrained
organisms
pass
through
a
facility's
cooling
system
they
are
subject
to
mechanical,
thermal,
and
sometimes
chemical
stress.
Sources
of
such
stress
include
physical
impacts
in
the
pumps
and
condenser
tubing,
pressure
changes
caused
by
diversion
of
the
cooling
water
into
the
plant
or
by
the
hydraulic
effects
of
the
condensers,
sheer
stress,
thermal
shock
in
the
condenser
and
discharge
tunnel,
and
chemical
toxic
effects
from
antifouling
agents
such
as
chlorine.
Like
death
from
impingement,
death
from
entrainment
can
occur
immediately
or
subsequently
after
an
organism
is
returned
to
the
waterbody
as
it
succumbs
to
the
damage
from
the
stresses
encountered
as
it
passed
through
the
cooling
water
system.
It
is
EPA's
position
that
the
current
state
of
the
science
indicates
that
there
is
little
to
no
chance
of
survival
for
organisms
which
are
entrained
by
cooling
water
intake
structures.
3
The
environmental
impacts
attributable
to
impingement
and
entrainment
at
individual
facilities
may
result
in
appreciable
losses
of
early
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
serious
reductions
in
forage
species,
reductions
in
recreational
and
commercial
landings,
and
extensive
losses
over
relatively
short
intervals
of
time.
EPA
estimates
that
the
current
number
of
age­
one
equivalent
fish
and
shellfish
killed
from
impingement
and
entrainment
from
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
the
facilities
potentially
covered
by
this
Phase
III
proposed
rule
is
over
120
million4
annually.

The
following
are
among
other
recent
documented
examples
of
impact
occurring
as
a
result
of
cooling
water
intake
structures:

Brayton
Point
Pacific
Gas
&
Electric's
Brayton
Point
plant
(
formerly
owned
by
New
England
Power
Company)
is
located
in
Mt.
Hope
Bay,
in
the
northeastern
reach
of
Narragansett
Bay,
Rhode
Island.
To
increase
electric
generating
capacity,
Unit
4
was
switched
from
closedcycle
to
once­
through
cooling
in
1985.
The
modification
of
Unit
4
increased
cooling
water
intake
flow
by
45
percent.
Studies
designed
to
evaluate
whether
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
affecting
fish
species
abundance
trends
found
that
Mt.
Hope
Bay
5
Comparison
of
Trends
in
the
Finfish
Assemblages
of
Mt.
Hope
Bay
and
Narragansett
Bay
in
Relation
to
Operations
of
the
New
England
Power
Brayton
Point
Station.
Mark
Gibson,
Rhode
Island
Division
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Marine
Fisheries
Office,
June
1995
and
revised
August
1996.

6
Southern
California
Edison.
1988.
Report
on
1987
data:
marine
environmental
analysis
and
interpretation,
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station.

7
Ibid.

8
Murdoch,
W.
W.,
R.
C.
Fay,
and
B.
J.
Mechalas.
1989.
Final
Report
of
the
Marine
Review
Committee
to
the
California
Coastal
Commission.
August
1989,
MRC
Document
No.
89­
02.

9
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

10
Swarbrick,
S.
and
R.
F.
Ambrose.
1989.
Technical
report
C:
entrapment
of
juvenile
and
adult
fish
at
SONGS.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

11
Kastendiek,
J.
and
K.
Parker.
1988.
Interim
technical
report:
midwater
and
benthic
fish.
Prepared
for
Marine
Review
Committee.

10
November
24,
2004
experienced
a
progressively
steady
rate
of
decline
in
finfish
species
of
recreational,
commercial,
and
ecological
importance.
5
In
contrast,
species
abundance
trends
were
relatively
stable
in
coastal
areas
and
portions
of
Narragansett
Bay
that
are
not
influenced
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Further
strengthening
the
evidence
that
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
was
contributing
to
the
documented
declines
was
the
finding
that
the
rate
of
population
decline
increased
substantially
with
the
full
implementation
of
the
once­
through
cooling
mode
for
Unit
4.

San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
The
San
Onofre
Nuclear
Generating
Station
(
SONGS)
is
located
on
the
coastline
of
the
Southern
California
Bight,
approximately
2.5
miles
southeast
of
San
Clemente,
California.
6
The
marine
portions
of
Units
2
and
3,
which
are
once­
through,
open­
cycle
cooling
systems,
began
commercial
operation
in
August
1983
and
April
1984,
respectively.
7
Since
then,
many
studies
evaluated
the
impact
of
the
SONGS
facility
on
the
marine
environment.

At
SONGS,
in
a
normal
(
non­
El
Niño)
year,
an
estimated
57
tons
of
fish
were
killed
per
year
when
all
units
were
in
operation.
8
Unit
1,
which
accounted
for
about
20
percent
of
total
losses,
was
taken
out
of
operation
in
November
2002.
The
fish
lost
include
approximately
350,000
juveniles
of
white
croaker,
a
popular
sport
fish;
this
number
represents
33,000
adult
individuals
or
3.5
tons
of
adult
fish.
Within
3
kilometers
of
SONGS,
the
density
of
queenfish
and
white
croaker
in
shallow­
water
samples
decreased
by
34
and
36
percent,
respectively.
Queenfish
declined
by
50
to
70
percent
in
deepwater
samples.
9
In
contrast,
relative
abundances
of
bottom­
dwelling
adult
queenfish
and
white
croaker
increased
in
the
vicinity
of
SONGS.
10
Increased
numbers
of
these
and
other
bottom­
dwelling
species
were
believed
to
be
related
to
the
enriching
nature
of
SONGS
discharges,
which
in
turn
support
elevated
numbers
of
prey
items
for
bottom
fish.
11
11
November
24,
2004
Additional
documented
examples
of
impacts
occurring
as
a
result
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
are
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule
and
the
Technical
Development
Document.

Evidence
That
Point
Sources
Are
Not
Using
Best
Technology
Available
To
Minimize
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
The
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
rule
addresses
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
at
existing
manufacturing
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
In
general
and
based
on
available
data,
most
existing
manufacturing
facilities
use
conventional
traveling
screens
as
a
baseline
technology.
These
screens
are
designed
to
prevent
debris
from
entering
the
cooling
water
system,
not
to
minimize
impingement
and
entrainment.
The
most
common
intake
designs
include
front­
end
trash
racks
(
usually
consisting
of
fixed
bars)
to
prevent
large
debris
from
entering
the
system.
They
are
equipped
with
screen
panels
mounted
on
an
endless
belt
that
rotates
through
the
water
vertically.
Most
conventional
screens
have
3/
8­
inch
mesh
that
prevents
smaller
debris
from
clogging
the
condenser
tubes.
The
screen
wash
is
typically
high
pressure
(
80
to
120
pounds
per
square
inch
(
psi)).
Screens
are
rotated
and
washed
intermittently
and
fish
that
are
impinged
often
die
because
they
are
trapped
on
the
stationary
screens
for
extended
periods.
The
high­
pressure
wash
also
frequently
kills
fish
or
they
are
re­
impinged
on
the
screens.
Conventional
traveling
screens
are
used
by
a
majority
of
existing
facilities
within
the
scope
of
this
rule.

Evidence
that
a
National
Regulatory
Approach
Is
Warranted
NPDES
permitting
authorities
have
codified
the
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
in
a
variety
of
ways.
In
1993,
after
evaluating
State
regulations
and
statutes
relating
to
section
316(
b),
EPA
determined
that
of
the
then
40
States
with
NPDES
permitting
authority,
the
majority
did
not
have
statutes
or
regulations
specifically
addressing
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
in
any
detail.
Exhibit
1
below
summarizes
some
of
the
State
authorities
EPA
identified
that
did
address
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).

States
such
as
California
and
Florida
have
developed
regulatory
requirements
that
closely
mirror
the
statutory
language
of
section
316(
b).
Additionally,
several
other
NPDES
States
have
included
language
in
their
statutes
or
regulations
referencing
either
section
316(
b)
or
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I,
which
is
the
section
of
the
Federal
NPDES
regulations
for
criteria
applicable
to
new
cooling
water
intake
structures.
For
example,
New
Jersey's
NPDES
regulations
state,
"[
T]
he
criteria
applicable
to
cooling
water
intake
structures
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
Subpart
I
when
the
USEPA
adopts
these
criteria."
Other
States
merely
restate
the
statutory
language.
For
example,
New
York's
NPDES
regulations
require
that
"[
t]
he
location,
design,
construction
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures,
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges,
shall
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."
12
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
1.
Selected
NPDES
State
Statutory/
Regulatory
Provisions:
Addressing
the
Impact
from
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
NPDES
State
Citation
Summary
of
Requirements
Connecticut
RCSA
Section
22a,
430­
4
Provides
for
coordination
with
other
Federal/
State
agencies
with
jurisdiction
over
fish,
wildlife,
or
public
health,
which
may
recommend
conditions
necessary
to
avoid
substantial
impairment
of
fish,
shellfish,
or
wildlife
resources
New
Jersey
NJAC
Section
7:
14A­
11.6
Criteria
applicable
to
intake
structure
shall
be
as
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
125,
when
EPA
adopts
these
criteria
New
York
6
NYCRR
Section
704.5
The
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
intake
structures
in
connection
with
point
source
thermal
discharges
shall
reflect
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
environmental
impact
Maryland
MRC
Section
26.08.03
Detailed
regulatory
provisions
addressing
best
technology
available
determinations
Illinois
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
306.201
(
1998)
Requirement
that
new
intake
structures
on
waters
designated
for
general
use
shall
be
so
designed
as
to
minimize
harm
to
fish
and
other
aquatic
organisms
Iowa
567
IAC
62.4(
455B)
Incorporates
40
CFR
part
401,
with
cooling
water
intake
structure
provisions
designated
"
reserved"

California
Cal.
Wat.
Code
Section
13142.5(
b)
Requirements
that
new
or
expanded
coastal
power
plants
or
other
industrial
installations
using
seawater
for
cooling
shall
use
best
available
site,
design
technology,
and
mitigation
measures
feasible
to
minimize
intake
and
mortality
of
marine
life
In
discussions
with
State
and
EPA
regional
contacts,
EPA
has
found
that
there
are
numerous
issues
associated
with
the
lack
of
a
national
regulatory
approach
to
implementing
section
316(
b)
requirements.
None
of
the
State
programs
establish
national
performance
standards
for
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
believes
that
such
national
standards
promote
consistent
application
of
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
particularly
believes
that
national
regulations
are
needed
to
ensure
consistency
in
determining
which
facilities
are
subject
to
section
316(
b)
requirements,
what
environmental
impacts
would
be
addressed,
which
available
technologies
are
best,
and
how
to
determine
permit
requirements
that
fulfill
section
316(
b).
In
addition,
many
implementation
issues
require
clarification,
including
but
not
limited
to
what
data
are
sufficient
to
support
316(
b)
decisions,
what
is
the
appropriate
scope
and
focus
of
316(
b)
studies,
and
what
is
the
appropriate
role
of
practices
such
as
restoration.
The
existing
case­
by­
case
approach
results
in
high
administrative
burdens
being
imposed
on
applicants
and
permit
writers
relative
to
the
final
rule.
As
EPA
has
discussed
at
67
FR
17167,
such
burdens
can
be
associated
with
the
need
to
determine
in
each
case
whether
adverse
impacts
are
occurring,
the
nature
and
level
of
any
such
impacts,
and
which
design
and
construction
technologies
constitute
the
best
technology
available
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impacts,
including
consideration
of
costs
and
benefits.
Further,
these
case­
by­
case
approaches
13
November
24,
2004
increase
the
likelihood
that
each
significant
cooling
water
intake
permitting
issue
becomes
a
point
of
contention
between
the
applicant
and
permit
writer,
which
experience
indicates
slows
the
permitting
process,
makes
it
more
resource
intensive,
and
makes
it
less
effective
and
more
costly.
EPA
also
is
aware
of
varying
practices
among
States.
For
example,
in
discussions
with
State
and
EPA
regional
contacts,
EPA
has
found
that
there
are
differences
in
the
manner
in
which
States
have
implemented
their
section
316(
b)
authority
through
the
years.
Some
States
and
Regions
review
section
316(
b)
requirements
each
time
an
NPDES
permit
is
reissued.
These
permitting
authorities
may
re­
evaluate
the
potential
for
impact
and
whether
operations
or
other
conditions
influencing
the
potential
for
impact
have
changed
at
the
facility.
Other
permitting
authorities
were
found
to
have
made
initial
determinations
for
facilities
in
the
1970s
but
not
to
have
revisited
the
determinations
since.

As
discussed
above,
EPA
believes
that
approaches
to
implementing
section
316(
b)
vary
greatly.
It
is
evident
that
some
authorities
have
regulations
and
other
program
mechanisms
in
place
to
ensure
continued
implementation
of
section
316(
b)
and
evaluation
of
the
potential
impact
from
cooling
water
intake
structures,
while
others
do
not.
Furthermore,
section
316(
b)
determinations
are
currently
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
based
on
permit
writers'
best
professional
judgment.
Through
discussions
with
some
State
permitting
officials
(
e.
g.,
in
California,
Georgia,
and
New
Jersey),
EPA
was
asked
to
establish
national
standards
in
order
to
help
ease
the
case­
by­
case
burden
on
permit
writers
and
to
promote
national
uniformity
with
respect
to
implementation
of
section
316(
b).

2a(
ii).
Authority
for
the
Collection
Section
316
was
included
in
the
Federal
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
of
1972
for
the
express
purpose
of
regulating
thermal
discharges
and
to
address
the
environmental
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Moreover,
section
316(
b)
is
the
only
provision
in
the
CWA
that
focuses
exclusively
on
water
intake.
Section
316(
b)
provides
that
"[
a]
ny
standard
established
pursuant
to
[
CWA
section
301]
or
[
CWA
section
306]
and
applicable
to
a
point
source
shall
require
that
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
reflect
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact."
The
requirements
of
section
316(
b)
are
closely
linked
to
several
of
the
core
elements
(
e.
g.,
sections
301,
304,
306
and
402)
of
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
program
established
under
the
CWA.
Conditions
implementing
section
316(
b)
are
and
will
continue
under
this
rule
to
be
included
in
NPDES
permits
issued
under
section
402
of
the
CWA.

The
proposed
Phase
III
rule
implements
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
as
it
applies
to
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
facilities
under
§
125.101
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
as
defined
in
§
125.133.
The
proposed
rule
establishes
requirements,
reflecting
the
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
applicable
to
the
location,
design,
construction,
and
capacity
of
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
Phase
III
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
that
withdraw
cooling
water
from
waters
of
the
U.
S.
12
Under
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
is
to
propose
regulations
in
Phase
II
that
are
"
applicable
to,
at
a
minimum:
(
i)
existing
utilities
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
both
generate
and
transmit
electric
power)
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process;
and
(
ii)
existing
nonutility
power
producers
(
i.
e.,
facilities
that
generate
electric
power
but
sell
it
to
another
entity
for
transmission)
that
employ
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
whose
intake
flow
levels
exceed
a
minimum
threshold
to
be
determined
by
EPA
during
the
Phase
II
rulemaking
process."

14
November
24,
2004
The
proposed
Phase
III
rule
is
being
issued
under
the
authority
of
sections
101,
301,
304,
306,
308,
316,
401,
402,
501,
and
510
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA),
33
U.
S.
C.
1251,
1311,
1314,
1316,
1318,
1326,
1341,
1342,
1361,
and
1370.
Today's
proposed
rule
partially
fulfills
the
obligations
of
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
under
a
consent
decree
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Leavitt,
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
No.
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS).

The
proposed
rule
partially
fulfills
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
an
Amended
Consent
Decree.
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
was
filed
on
November
22,
2000,
in
the
United
States
District
Court,
Southern
District
of
New
York,
in
Riverkeeper
Inc.,
et
al.
v.
Leavitt,
No.
93
Civ
0314
(
AGS),
a
case
brought
against
EPA
by
a
coalition
of
individuals
and
environmental
groups.
The
original
Consent
Decree,
filed
on
October
10,
1995,
provided
that
EPA
was
to
propose
regulations
implementing
section
316(
b)
by
July
2,
1999,
and
take
final
action
with
respect
to
those
regulations
by
August
13,
2001.
Under
subsequent
interim
orders
and
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
EPA
has
divided
the
rulemaking
into
three
phases
and
is
working
under
new
deadlines.
As
required
by
the
Amended
Consent
Decree,
on
November
9,
2001,
EPA
took
final
action
on
a
rule
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by
new
facilities
(
Phase
I).
66
FR
65255
(
December
18,
2001).
The
Amended
Consent
Decree
also
requires
that
EPA
issue
a
proposed
rule
by
February
28,
2002,
(
67
FR
17121,
April
9,
2002)
and
take
final
action
on
this
rule
by
February
16,
2004
(
Phase
II).
12
On
February
16,
2004
EPA
took
final
action
on
a
rule
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used
by
existing
Facilities
(
Phase
II).
69
FR
41575
(
July
9,
2004).
The
decree
requires
further
that
EPA
propose
regulations
governing
cooling
water
intake
structures
used,
at
a
minimum,
by
smaller­
flow
power
plants
and
factories
in
four
industrial
sectors
(
pulp
and
paper
making,
petroleum
and
coal
products
manufacturing,
chemical
and
allied
manufacturing,
and
primary
metal
manufacturing)
by
November
1,
2004,
and
take
final
action
by
June
1,
2006
(
Phase
III).

2b.
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
proposed
rule
includes
both
information
that
would
be
submitted
to
permitting
authorities
and
data
that
would
be
collected
and
maintained
on­
site
by
the
facility.
Each
existing
facility
and
as
applicable,
each
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facility,
would
maintain
facility­
level
records
of
the
characterization
data,
plans,
measurements,
diagrams,
and
calculations
submitted
to
the
Directors,
as
well
as
the
analytical
results
of
monitoring
actions.
Facilities
could
use
the
data
to:
15
November
24,
2004
°
Characterize
environmental
conditions
and
monitor
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure
performance.

°
Determine
appropriate
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational,
or
restoration
measures.

°
Monitor
the
performance
of
design
and
construction
technologies,
or
operational
or
restoration
measures.

Permit
writers
would
also
use
these
data
to
verify
that
the
appropriate
compliance
actions
are
selected
and
implemented.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
and
State
Directors
would
maintain
records
compiled
from
the
regulated
facilities.
Much
of
the
basic
information
obtained
from
the
NPDES
permit
application
is
stored
in
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
used
to
track
permit
limits,
permit
expiration
dates,
monitoring
data,
and
other
data,
and
provides
EPA
with
a
nationwide
inventory
of
permit
holders.
EPA
stores
basic
notice
of
intent
(
NOI)
information
submitted
for
coverage
under
an
NPDES
general
permit
in
the
NOI
database
housed
at
the
NOI
Processing
Center.

EPA
Headquarters
uses
the
information
contained
in
PCS
and
the
NOI
databases
to
develop
reports
on
permit
issuance,
backlog,
and
compliance
rates.
The
Agency
also
uses
the
information
to
respond
to
public
and
Congressional
inquiries,
develop
and
guide
its
policies,
formulate
its
budgets,
assist
States
in
acquiring
authority
for
permitting
programs,
and
manage
the
NPDES
program
to
ensure
national
consistency
in
permitting.
States
can
use
this
initial
permit
information
along
with
the
additional
documentation
and
the
annual
reports
to
track
facility
monitoring,
compliance
violations,
and
enforcement
activities.

Permittees
would
reapply
for
NPDES
permits
every
five
years.
The
re­
application
process
is
the
primary
mechanism
for
obtaining
up­
to­
date
and
new
information
concerning
on­
site
conditions.
Although
under
the
proposed
rule,
existing
manufacturing
facilities
and
as
applicable,
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
would
provide
data
from
selfmonitoring
activities
in
biannual
and
annual
reports,
respectively,
to
the
permitting
authority,
these
reports
are
a
less
comprehensive
information
gathering
process
than
the
permit
application
process.
EPA
and
States
would
use
re­
application
data
to
identify
new
species
at
risk
or
other
potential
concerns
that
could
lead
the
permit
writers
to
take
the
following
actions:

°
Specify
additional
permit
limitations.

°
Assess
compliance
with
applicable
standard
requirements.

°
Place
appropriate
special
conditions
in
permits.

Environmental
and
citizen
groups
are
expected
to
use
the
data
collected
under
the
proposed
rule
to
independently
assess
impingement
and
entrainment
rates
for
affected
water
bodies
in
their
location.
In
addition,
the
data
would
be
useful
for
the
scientific
16
November
24,
2004
community
for
assessing
the
impact
of
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
on
recreational
and
commercial
fisheries
productivity
and
aquatic
ecosystem
health.
17
November
24,
2004
3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
The
following
sections
verify
and
affirm
that
this
Information
Collection
Request
satisfies
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
data­
collection
guidelines,
has
public
support,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.

3a.
Nonduplication
Given
that
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule
applies
to
existing
facilities
as
well
as
to
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
,
current
data
sources
may
already
exist
for
the
information
required
under
the
today's
proposed
rule.
Therefore,
it
was
important
that
EPA
review
existing
data
sources
to
identify
currently
available
information
on
entities
subject
to
section
316(
b)
regulation
and
to
ensure
that
the
data
requested
by
the
proposed
rule
are
not
otherwise
accessible.
Data
sources
reviewed
included:
data
collected
by
offices
within
EPA;
data,
reports,
and
analyses
published
by
other
Federal
agencies;
reports
and
analyses
published
by
industry;
and
publicly
available
financial
information
compiled
by
government
and
private
organizations.
From
this
effort,
EPA
has
determined
that
the
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
considered
in
this
ICR
are
not
contained
or
duplicated
in
other
routinely
collected
documents
or
reports.

3b.
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
A
summary
of
the
ICR
for
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule
will
be
included
in
the
proposal
with
a
request
for
comment,
which
has
a
projected
publication
date
in
the
Federal
Register
of
November
24,
2004.

3c.
Consultations
EPA
worked
extensively
with
stakeholders
from
the
industry,
public
interest
groups,
State
agencies,
and
other
Federal
agencies
in
the
development
of
this
proposed
rule.
EPA
included
industry
groups,
environmental
groups,
and
other
government
entities
in
the
development,
testing,
refinement,
and
completion
of
the
section
316(
b)
survey,
which
was
used
as
a
primary
source
of
data
for
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule.
As
discussed
in
section
III
of
today's
preamble,
the
survey,
"
Information
Collection
Request,
Detailed
Industry
Questionnaires:
Phase
II
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structures
&
Watershed
Case
Study
Short
Questionnaire,"
was
initiated
in
1997,
and
was
used
to
collect
data
during
1998.
EPA
conducted
two
public
meetings
on
section
316(
b)
issues.
In
June
of
1998,
EPA
conducted
a
public
meeting
focused
on
a
draft
regulatory
framework
for
assessing
potential
adverse
18
November
24,
2004
environmental
impact
from
impingement
and
entrainment.
63
FR
27958
(
May
21,
1998).
A
second
public
meeting
was
held
in
September
of
1998,
and
focused
on
technology,
cost,
and
mitigation
issues.
63
FR
40683
(
July
30,
1998).
In
addition,
in
September
of
1998,
and
April
of
1999,
EPA
participated
in
technical
workshops
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact.
EPA
also
participated
in
other
industry
conferences,
and
has
met
with
representatives
of
industry
and
environmental
groups.

In
the
months
leading
up
to
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
conducted
a
series
of
stakeholder
meetings
to
review
the
draft
regulatory
framework
for
the
proposed
rule
and
invited
stakeholders
to
provide
their
recommendations.
Participants
included
representatives
of
the
electric
power
industry,
as
well
as
the
petroleum
refining,
pulp
and
paper,
and
iron
and
steel
industries.
EPA
also
met
with
environmental
groups,
States,
and
interstate
groups.
After
publication
of
the
proposed
Phase
I
rule,
EPA
continued
to
meet
with
stakeholders.
Summaries
of
these
meetings
are
in
the
docket.
EPA
also
received
many
comments
on
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
(
65
FR
49059,
August
10,
2000)
and
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
NODA).
(
66
FR
28853,
May
25,
2001).
These
comments
informed
the
development
of
the
Phase
II
rule
and
this
Phase
III
proposed
rule.

In
January
2001,
EPA
attended
technical
workshops
organized
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
and
the
Utilities
Water
Act
Group.
These
workshops
focused
on
key
issues
associated
with
different
regulatory
approaches
considered
under
the
Phase
I
proposed
rule
and
alternatives
for
addressing
section
316(
b)
requirements.

On
May
23,
2001,
EPA
held
a
day­
long
forum
to
discuss
specific
issues
associated
with
the
development
of
regulations
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.
66
FR
20658
(
April
24,
2001).
At
the
meeting,
17
experts
from
industry,
public
interest
groups,
States,
and
academia
reviewed
and
discussed
the
Agency's
preliminary
data
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
technologies
that
are
in
place
at
existing
facilities
and
the
costs
associated
with
the
use
of
available
technologies
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.
Over
120
people
attended
the
meeting.

On
August
21,
2001,
EPA
participated
in
a
technical
symposium
sponsored
by
the
Electric
Power
Research
Institute
in
association
with
the
American
Fisheries
Society
on
issues
relating
to
the
definition
and
assessment
of
adverse
environmental
impact
under
section
316(
b)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act.

During
development
of
the
Phase
I
and
Phase
II
rules,
EPA
coordinated
with
the
Nuclear
Regulatory
Commission
(
NRC)
to
ensure
that
there
would
not
be
a
conflict
with
NRC
safety
requirements.
NRC
reviewed
the
proposed
Phase
II
rule
and
did
not
identify
any
apparent
conflict
with
nuclear
plant
safety.
NRC
licensees
would
continue
to
be
obligated
to
meet
NRC
requirements
for
design
and
reliable
operation
of
cooling
systems.
NRC
recommended
that
EPA
consider
adding
language
which
states
that
in
cases
of
conflict
between
an
EPA
requirement
and
an
NRC
safety
requirement,
the
NRC
safety
19
November
24,
2004
requirement
takes
precedence.
EPA
added
language
to
address
this
concern
in
the
Phase
II
final
rule
and
this
proposed
rule.

EPA
sponsored
a
Symposium
on
Cooling
Water
Intake
Technologies
to
Protect
Aquatic
Organisms,
on
May
6
 
7,
2003.
This
symposium
brought
together
professionals
from
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
regulatory
agencies;
industry;
environmental
organizations;
engineering
consulting
firms;
science
and
research
organizations;
academia;
and
others
concerned
with
mitigating
harm
to
the
aquatic
environment
by
cooling
water
intake
structures.
Efficacy
and
costs
of
various
technologies
to
mitigate
impacts
to
aquatic
organisms
from
cooling
water
intake
structures,
as
well
as
research
and
other
future
needs,
were
discussed.

EPA
also
conducted
Phase
III­
specific
data
collection
activities,
including
a
study
of
entrainment
at
manufacturing
facilities,
contacting
Phase
III
facilities
to
request
biological
studies
and
conducting
an
industry
survey
of
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
and
seafood
processing
vessels.

Finally,
EPA
formed
a
Small
Business
Advocacy
Review
(
SBAR)
panel
to
provide
information
to
small
entities
and
receive
feedback
during
the
Phase
III
rulemaking
process.
EPA
hosted
two
outreach
meetings:
the
Phase
III
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Outreach
Meetings
for
Small
Entities
on
January
22,
2004,
and
March
16,
2004.
The
information
gathered
from
the
participating
businesses
during
these
outreach
meetings
and
subsequent
correspondence
was
consolidated
into
a
final
report
on
April
27,
2004.
Results
of
the
final
report
were
presented
to
the
EPA
Administrator,
and
considered
in
this
proposed
Phase
III
rule.

3d.
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
concluded
that
less
frequent
data
collection
may
fail
to
identify
in
a
timely
manner
adverse
environmental
impact
resulting
from
the
operation
of
existing
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).
In
addition,
less
frequent
collection
would
also
hinder
the
ability
of
EPA,
States,
and
facility
operators
to
take
advantage
of
technological
improvements
in
impingement
and
entrainment
technologies
as
they
occur,
or
to
track
long­
term
trends.

3e.
General
Guidelines
The
information
collection
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
are
in
accordance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
guidelines
at
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2).
Requests
for
supplemental
information
for
the
purposes
of
emergency
response
or
enforcement
activities
are
exempt
from
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
requirements.
20
November
24,
2004
3f.
Confidentiality
Applications
for
an
NPDES
permit
may
contain
confidential
business
information.
However,
EPA
does
not
consider
the
specific
information
being
requested
by
the
proposed
rule
to
be
typical
of
confidential
business
or
personal
information.
If
a
respondent
does
consider
this
information
to
be
of
a
confidential
nature,
the
respondent
may
request
that
such
information
be
treated
as
such.
All
confidential
data
will
be
handled
in
accordance
with
40
CFR
§
122.7,
40
CFR
Part
2,
and
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.

3g.
Sensitive
Questions
The
proposed
Phase
III
rule
does
not
require
respondents
to
divulge
information
pertaining
to
private
or
personal
information,
such
as
sexual
behavior
or
religious
beliefs.
Therefore,
this
section
is
not
applicable.
21
November
24,
2004
4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4a.
Respondents/
SIC
The
applicability
criteria
of
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule
at
§
125.101
defines
an
existing
manufacturer
as
a
Phase
III
existing
facility
subject
to
this
proposed
regulation
if
it
is
a
point
source
that
uses
or
proposes
to
use
a
cooling
water
intake
structure,
is
an
existing
facility
other
than
a
Phase
II
existing
facility,
has
at
least
one
cooling
water
intake
structure
that
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
(
measured
on
an
average
annual
basis)
for
cooling
purposes,
and
has
a
design
intake
flow
equal
or
in
excess
one
of
the
three
proposed
threshold
values
of
50
MGD
for
all
waterbodies;
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
and
100
MGD
for
certain
waterbodies.
The
definitions
provided
under
§
125.133
of
the
proposed
rule
(
amending
the
definitions
at
§
125.83)
include
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
Applicability
criteria
are
found
at
§
125.134
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
Use
of
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
includes
obtaining
cooling
water
by
any
sort
of
contract
or
arrangement
with
an
independent
supplier
(
or
multiple
suppliers)
of
cooling
water
if
the
supplier
or
suppliers
withdraw(
s)
water
from
waters
of
the
United
States.
Use
of
cooling
water
does
not
include
obtaining
cooling
water
from
a
public
water
system
or
use
of
treated
effluent
that
otherwise
would
be
discharged
to
a
water
of
the
United
States.

Typically,
respondents
under
the
Phase
III
proposed
rule
include
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
because
they
are
associated
with
large
cooling
water
needs.
Facilities
in
manufacturer
categories
are
classified
under
the
following
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes:
Paper
and
Allied
Products:
2611,
2621,
2631
and
2676;
Chemical
and
Allied
Products:
28
(
except
2895,
2893,
2851
and
2879);
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products:
2911
and
2999
and
Primary
Metals:
3312,
3313,
3315
through
3317,
3334,
3339,
3353,
3363,
3365,
and
3366.
Offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
classified
under
SIC
codes
1311
and
1321.
SIC
Codes
are
provided
in
Exhibit
2.
22
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
2.
Industry
Categories
and
SIC
Codes
for
Phase
III
Proposed
Rule
Respondent
Industry
Categories
SIC
Codes
Manufacturers
SIC
Major
Groups:
26,
28,
29
and
33
Paper
and
Allied
Products
2611,
2621,
2631
and
2676
Chemical
and
Allied
Products
28
(
except
2895,
2893,
2851
and
2879)

Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
2911
and
2999
Primary
Metals
3312,
3313,
3315
through
3317,
3334,
3339,
3353,
3363,
3365,
and
3366
Offshore
and
Coastal
Oil
and
Gas
Exploration
SIC
Major
Group
13
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
1311
and
1321
4b.
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
details
on
data
items
requested
and
associated
activities
that
the
proposed
rule
would
require
respondents
to
undertake.
The
two
principal
respondent
categories
are
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
and
NPDES
program
Directors
(
i.
e.,
States
and
Territories
authorized
under
CWA
section
402(
b)
to
administer
the
NPDES
permit
program,
and
EPA
regional
offices).

Information
requirements
for
Phase
III
existing
facilities
would
differ
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected
by
the
applicant.
As
discussed
in
Section
1,
five
compliance
alternatives
would
be
available
to
an
existing
facility.
Certain
information
requirements
would
be
applicable
to
all
existing
permitted
facilities
to
which
the
proposed
rule
applies,
other
information
requirements
apply
based
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected.
New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
submit
information
consistent
with
§
125.136
of
the
proposed
rule.

Since
section
316(
b)
standards
are
implemented
through
NPDES
permits,
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
would
affect
Directors
in
a
manner
similar
to
other
changes
to
NPDES
program
requirements.
There
are
currently
45
States
and
one
Territory
authorized
under
CWA
section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program,
these
new
cooling
water
intake
structure
requirements
potentially
affect
authorized
State
NPDES
programs.
To
be
consistent
with
today's
proposed
rule,
States
would
revise
their
current
regulations
or
may
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator
that
the
State
has
adopted
alternative
regulatory
requirements
that
will
result
in
environmental
performance
within
a
watershed
that
is
comparable
to
the
reductions
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
otherwise
be
achieved
by
the
requirements
of
§
125.103.
Implementation
of
the
Phase
III
proposed
regulations
would
begin
upon
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.
23
November
24,
2004
4b(
i).
Data
Items,
Including
Record
Keeping
Requirements
Data
items
that
would
be
required
by
today's
proposed
rule
would
be
gathered
for
either
record
keeping
or
reporting
purposes.
There
are
several
data
items
that
would
be
collected
only
during
the
year(
s)
prior
to
the
beginning
of
each
permit
cycle,
and
others
that
are
required
to
be
collected
on
an
annual
basis.
A
discussion
of
all
reporting
requirements
follows
below.

Reporting
Requirements
Phase
III
existing
facilities
would
report
the
information
required
under
paragraphs
(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
5)
of
§
122.21
and
§
125.104
with
their
application.
At
the
time
a
Phase
III
existing
facility
submits
its
NPDES
permit
renewal
application
(
approximately
180
days
prior
to
expiration
of
its
current
permit,
in
accordance
with
§
122.21(
d)(
2)),
the
proposed
rule
requires
the
facility
to
submit
information
demonstrating
that
it
is
employing,
or
will
employ
best
technology
available
for
its
cooling
water
intake
structure
to
minimize
adverse
environmental
impact
in
compliance
with
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA.
The
information
will
be
used
to
identify
which
of
the
requirements
in
the
rulemaking
apply
to
the
facility,
how
the
facility
is
meeting
these
requirements,
and
whether
the
facility
is
meeting
the
goal
of
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact.
Three
types
of
information
are
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
applications
for
all
Phase
III
existing
facilities:

1.
Source
water
physical
data,
as
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2).
Source
water
information
is
required
to
evaluate
potential
impact
to
the
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
placed.
Typically,
intake
structures
are
located
offshore,
at
the
shoreline,
or
at
the
end
of
an
approach
intake
canal.
The
intake
structure
affects
different
species
or
life
stages
depending
on
its
location
in
the
source
water
and
the
source
water
type.
For
example,
intakes
located
at
the
shoreline
could
affect
spawning
and
nursery
areas,
while
intakes
located
offshore
could
affect
migratory
routes.
In
addition,
the
proximity
of
the
intake
structures
to
sensitive
aquatic
ecological
areas
may
result
in
potential
environmental
impact.

2.
Cooling
water
intake
structure
data,
as
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
3).
Facilities
are
required
to
submit
information
on
the
intake
structure
design
and
operation
and
the
facility's
water
balance
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
impingement
and
entrainment
of
aquatic
organisms.
Information
on
the
design
of
the
intake
structure
and
its
location
in
the
water
column
allows
EPA
to
evaluate
which
species
or
life
stages
would
potentially
be
subject
to
impingement
and
entrainment.
Information
on
the
operation
of
the
intake
structure
and
a
diagram
of
the
facility's
water
balance
would
be
used
to
identify
the
proportion
of
intake
water
used
for
cooling,
make­
up,
and
process
water,
and
to
evaluate
whether
the
effects
of
the
intake
would
be
continuous,
intermittent
or
seasonal.
The
water
balance
diagram
also
would
provide
a
picture
of
the
total
flow
in
and
out
of
the
facility,
allowing
EPA
to
evaluate
compliance
with
the
flow
reduction
requirements
for
intakes
located
on
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
24
November
24,
2004
3.
Cooling
water
system
data,
as
per
requirements
under
§
122.21(
r)(
5).
Facilities
are
required
to
submit
cooling
water
system
data
in
accordance
with
§
122.21(
r)(
5)
for
the
purpose
of
evaluating
the
relationship
between
the
cooling
water
system
and
the
associated
intake(
s)
and
determining
whether
the
facility
uses
at
least
25
percent
of
the
water
it
withdraws
for
cooling
purposes.

Like
Phase
III
existing
facilities,
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
also
need
to
submit
source
water
physical
data
and
cooling
water
intake
data.
They
would
submit
data
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4),
and
velocity
information,
source
waterbody
flow
information,
and
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
as
required
under
§
125.136(
b)
for
Track
I
applications
or
data
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4),
and
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
and
source
waterbody
flow
information
as
required
under
§
125.136(
c)
for
Track
II
applications.

Depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected,
an
existing
facility
may
also
need
to
conduct
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
Study)
as
stipulated
under
§
125.104(
b)(
1)
through
§
125.104(
b)(
7)
as
applicable,
for
the
selected
compliance
alternative.
The
Study
would
be
necessary
to
characterize
the
source
water
baseline
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
characterize
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake,
and
confirm
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
intake
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.103.

The
Study
includes
the
following
components:

1.
A
proposal
for
information
collection
[
§
125.104(
b)(
1)],

2.
Source
waterbody
flow
information
[
§
125.104(
b)(
2)],

3.
An
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
[
§
125.104(
b)(
3)],

4.
Technology
compliance
and
assessment
information
[
§
125.104(
b)(
4)],

5.
Restoration
Plan
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)],

6.
Information
to
support
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)];
and,

7.
A
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
[
§
125.104(
b)(
7)].

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
under
Track
I
applications
may
be
required
to
collect
the
following
information:

1.
Data
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
(
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
(
§
122.21(
r)(
4))
is
not
required
for
mobile
offshore
drilling
units
(
MODUs)
25
November
24,
2004
2.
Velocity
Information
(
§
125.136(
b)(
1))

3.
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
(
§
125.136(
b)(
2))

4.
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
§
125.136(
b)(
3))

Although
the
proposed
rule
does
not
specifically
require
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
from
MODUs,
the
Director
may
request
source
water
physical
data
from
MODUs
at
his/
her
discretion.

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
under
Track
II
applications
may
be
required
to
collect
the
following
information:

1.
Data
required
under
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
(
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
(
§
122.21(
r)(
4))
is
not
required
for
MODUs
2.
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
(
§
125.136(
c)(
1))

3.
Track
II
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
(
§
125.136(
c)(
2))

For
compliance
alternative
5,
existing
facilities
that
choose
to
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
additional
information
would
be
required
to
be
included
in
the
NPDES
permit
application
as
part
of
the
Study
including:
(
1)
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study,
(
2)
a
benefits
evaluation
study
(
as
appropriate),
and
(
3)
a
site­
specific
technology
plan.

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
also
have
an
opportunity
to
conduct
a
cost­
to­
cost
test
and
would
be
required
to
submit
a
comprehensive
cost
evaluation
study
and
a
site­
specific
plan.

In
accordance
with
§
125.104(
a)(
2),
the
facility
would
submit
any
applicable
portions
of
the
Study,
except
for
the
Proposal
for
Information
Collection,
and
the
information
required
in
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3)
and
(
5),
with
the
NPDES
permit
application.
The
Proposal
for
Information
Collection
is
expected
to
be
submitted
well
in
advance
of
the
permit
application.

The
specific
requirements
of
each
component
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
and
requirements
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
detailed
under
the
Respondent
Activities
section
below.

Annual
Reporting
Requirements
In
addition
to
the
one­
time
reporting
requirements,
facilities
would
be
required
to
provide
the
following
information
to
the
Director
in
a
biennial
status
report
for
manufacturers
and
annual
status
report
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities:
26
November
24,
2004
°
Monitoring
records
as
required
by
§
125.106(
a)
and
§
125.106(
b).

Record
Keeping
Requirements
All
operators
of
Phase
III
existing
facilities
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
be
required
to
keep
records
and
to
report
information
and
data
to
the
permitting
authority
to
show
compliance
with
any
requirements
to
which
they
are
subject.
Records
would
be
required
to
be
maintained
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years
from
the
date
of
permit
issuance
unless
extended
by
the
request
of
the
Director.
Each
operator
would
be
required
to
maintain
records
of:

°
All
data
used
to
complete
the
permit
application
and
show
compliance
with
the
requirements.

°
Any
supplemental
information
developed
under
§
125.104.

°
Any
compliance
monitoring
data
submitted
under
§
125.105.

4b(
ii).
Respondent
Activities
As
mentioned
above,
respondents
would
include
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
and
NPDES
permit
program
Directors.
Their
information
collection
activities
are
described
below.

Permit
Application
Activities
All
facilities
and
Directors
would
need
to
perform
start­
up
activities
such
as:
reading
the
proposed
rule,
planning
for
the
implementation
of
the
rule,
and
training
staff
to
perform
various
tasks
necessary
to
comply
with
the
rule.
Activities
performed
during
the
permit
application
process
would
be
performed
only
once
during
each
ICR
period.
However,
these
application
activities
would
be
repeated
again
during
the
fifth
year
of
the
permit
cycle
as
part
of
the
permit
renewal
process.

Facility
Activities
Phase
III
existing
facilities
would
perform
several
data
gathering
activities
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process.
Under
the
proposed
rule,
all
Phase
III
existing
facilities
would
be
required
to
gather
application
information
as
specified
by
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
so
that
the
Director
can
evaluate
the
potential
impact
to
the
waterbody
in
which
the
intake
structure
is
located.
The
information
collected
under
40
CFR
122.21(
r)
includes
source
water
physical
data,
cooling
water
intake
structure
data,
and
Phase
III
existing
facility
cooling
water
system
data.

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
information
consistent
with
§
122.21(
r)(
2),
(
3),
and
(
4)
and
§
125.136
of
the
proposed
rule.
Facility
27
November
24,
2004
activities
for
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
facilities
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
presented
in
Exhibits
3
and
4,
respectively.
28
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
3.
Facility
Activities
for
Phase
III
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Activity
Name
50
MGD
DIF
All
Waterbodies
Option
200
MGD
DIF
All
Waterbodies
Option
100
MGD
DIF
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Start­
up
Activities
Yes
Yes
Yes
Permit
Application
Activities,
Including
Source
Water
Physical
Data,
Cooling
Water
System
Data
and
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
Yes
Yes
Yes
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
Yes
Yes
NA
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Yes
Yes
Yes
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
Restoration
Plan
Yes
Yes
Yes
29
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
4.
Facility
Activities
for
Phase
III
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
(
Track
I
Applications)

Activity
Name
Start­
up
Activities
Permit
Application
Activities,
Including
Source
Water
Physical
Data,
Velocity
Information
and
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Data
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
source
water
physical
data
include:
[
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
2)]
(
For
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)

°
Describing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody
where
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity
and
temperature
regimes
and
providing
other
documentation
that
supports
the
determination
of
waterbody
type;

°
Preparing
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody;

°
Characterizing
and
documenting
the
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features
of
the
source
waterbody;

°
Conducting
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody
and
summarizing
the
results
of
such
studies
(
including
a
description
of
methods
used);

°
Preparing
locational
maps;
and
°
Maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
on
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
include:
[
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
3)]
(
For
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)

°
Preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
its
location
within
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column;
30
November
24,
2004
°
Measuring
and
documenting
the
latitude
and
longitude
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure
in
degrees,
minutes,
and
seconds;

°
Developing
a
narrative
that
describes
the
operation
of
each
cooling
water
intake
structure,
including
design
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;

°
Developing
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
for
the
facility
that
includes
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges
°
Creating
engineering
drawings
and
locational
maps
in
support
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
descriptions
mentioned;
and
°
Maintaining
copies
of
these
documents
as
well
as
copies
of
any
information
used
in
their
development
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
under
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
include:
[
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
4)]
(
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
only
and
not
for
existing
manufacturers)

°
Characterize
the
biological
community
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
as
well
as
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
°
List
of
species
(
or
relevant
taxa)
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
°
Identification
and
evaluation
of
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
period
of
peak
meroplankton
abundance
for
relevant
taxa
°
A
description
of
the
likely
impact
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structures
on
the
biological
community
due
to
impingement
and
entrainment.

Although
the
proposed
rule
does
not
specifically
require
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization
data
from
MODUs,
the
Director
may
request
source
water
physical
data
from
MODUs
at
his/
her
discretion.

Activities
that
would
be
required
to
report
the
Phase
II
existing
facility
cooling
water
system
data
include:
[
40
CFR
122.21(
r)(
5)]
(
For
existing
manufacturers
only
and
not
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)

°
Preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
operation
of
each
of
the
facility's
cooling
water
systems,
relationship
to
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s),
proportion
of
design
flow
that
is
used
in
the
system,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable;

°
Producing
the
necessary
engineering
calculations
and
supporting
data
to
support
the
narrative
description;
and
31
November
24,
2004
°
Maintaining
a
copy
of
the
description
and
information
required
to
support
its
development
for
three
years
after
submittal.

Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Requirements
As
discussed
previously,
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected,
existing
facilities
would
need
to
complete
all
or
portions
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
The
specific
reporting
requirements
for
each
component
of
the
Study
are
discussed
below.

Proposal
for
Information
Collection
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)

The
facility
would
develop
and
submit
a
proposal
for
the
collection
of
information
to
support
the
Study.
In
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
1),
this
activity
includes:

°
Developing
a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Study
[
§
125.104(
b)(
1)(
i)]

°
Developing
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intakes
and
their
relevance
to
the
proposed
Study.
If
the
facility
proposes
to
use
existing
source
waterbody
data,
the
facility
would
demonstrate
the
extent
to
which
the
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions,
that
existing
data
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
site,
and
that
the
data
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures
[
§
125.104
(
b)(
1)(
ii)];

°
Developing
a
summary
of
any
past
or
ongoing
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
that
is
relevant
to
the
Study
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
[
§
125.104(
b)(
1)(
iii)];

°
Developing
a
sampling
plan
for
any
new
field
studies
that
the
facility
proposes
to
conduct.
The
sampling
plan
would
document
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis.
The
proposed
sampling
and
data
analysis
methods
would
be
appropriate
for
a
quantitative
survey
and
would
take
into
account
the
methods
used
in
other
studies
performed
in
the
source
waterbody.
The
sampling
plan
would
include
a
description
of
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure),
and
provide
a
taxonomic
identification
of
the
sampled
or
evaluated
biological
assemblages
(
including
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
1)(
iv)];
32
November
24,
2004
°
Facilities
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
because
of
costs
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
applicable
performance
standards
at
the
facility,
would
prepare
a
description
of
the
methodologies
to
be
used
in
the
facility
Benefits
Valuation
Study,
including
a
description
of
potential
ecological
and
non­
use
benefits
categories
and
whether
evaluating
them
would
be
done
quantitatively
or
qualitatively.
If
the
facility
plans
to
conduct
a
stated
preference
study
to
evaluate
such
benefits,
a
description
of
the
study
plan
including
such
information
as
target
population,
sampling
strategy,
approximate
sample
size,
general
survey
design,
and
other
relevant
information
should
be
included
[
§
125.104(
b)(
1)(
v)],
and
°
Maintain
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
proposal
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
(
with
50
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
and
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
options
only)
and
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities)

As
part
of
the
Study,
existing
facilities
with
intakes
located
on
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs
would
also
submit
source
waterbody
flow
information
as
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
2)
for
existing
manufacturers
and
under
§
125.136(
b)
or
(
c)
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
this
includes:

°
If
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
freshwater
river
or
stream,
the
facility
would
provide
the
annual
mean
flow
of
the
waterbody
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
support
the
analysis
of
whether
the
facility's
design
intake
flow
is
greater
than
five
percent
of
the
mean
annual
flow
of
the
river
or
stream
for
purposes
of
determining
applicable
performance
standards
under
paragraph
§
125.103
(
b).
Representative
historical
data
(
from
a
period
of
time
up
to
10
years,
if
available)
would
be
used;
[
§
125.104(
b)(
2)(
i)];
and
°
If
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located
in
a
lake
(
other
than
one
of
the
Great
Lakes)
or
a
reservoir
and
the
facility
proposes
to
increase
its
design
intake
flow,
the
facility
would
provide
a
narrative
description
of
the
waterbody
thermal
stratification,
and
any
supporting
documentation
and
engineering
calculations
to
show
that
the
total
design
intake
flow
after
the
increase
will
not
disrupt
the
natural
thermal
stratification
and
turnover
pattern
in
a
way
that
adversely
impacts
water
quality
or
fisheries
including
the
results
of
any
consultations
with
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
fish
or
wildlife
management
agencies
[
§
125.104(
b)(
2)(
ii)],
and,

°
Maintain
records
of
all
pertinent
documents
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
today's
proposed
rule
would
also
require
submission
of
source
waterbody
flow
information
consistent
with
the
requirements
at
§
125.136(
b)(
2).
The
information
would
be
used
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure
meets
the
proportional
flow
requirements
at
§
33
November
24,
2004
125.134(
b)(
3)
and
§
125.134(
c)(
2).
These
requirements
include
specific
provisions
for
facilities
located
on
estuaries
or
tidal
rivers
to
provide
greater
protection
for
these
sensitive
waters.
Specifically,
Phase
I
requires
that
the
total
design
intake
flow
over
one
tidal
cycle
of
ebb
and
flow
must
be
no
greater
than
one
(
1)
percent
of
the
volume
of
the
water
column
within
the
area
centered
about
the
opening
of
the
intake
with
a
diameter
defined
by
the
distance
of
one
tidal
excursion
at
the
mean
low
water
level.
Calculations
and
guidance
on
determining
the
tidal
excursion
is
found
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
Phase
I
rule
at
section
VII.
B.
1.
d
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)

As
part
of
the
Study,
the
facility
would
also
perform
an
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
to
provide
information
to
support
the
development
of
a
calculation
baseline
for
evaluating
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
and
to
characterize
current
impingement
and
entrainment.
Under
§
125.104(
b)(
3),
the
following
activities
would
be
required:

°
Taxonomic
identifications
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
their
life
stages
that
are
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake
and
are
most
susceptible
to
impingement
and
entrainment
[
§
125.104(
b)(
3)(
i)];

°
A
characterization
of
those
species
of
fish
and
shellfish
and
any
species
protected
under
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
Law
(
including
threatened
or
endangered
species)
identified
pursuant
to
§
125.104(
b)(
3)(
i),
including
a
description
of
the
abundance
and
temporal/
spatial
characteristics
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intake,
based
on
sufficient
data
to
characterize
annual,
seasonal
and
daily
variations
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
e.
g.,
related
to
climate/
weather
differences,
spawning,
feeding
and
water
column
migration)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
3)(
ii)];

°
Documentation
of
current
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish,
and
any
species
protected
under
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
Law
(
including
threatened
or
endangered
species)
identified
pursuant
to
§
125.104(
b)(
3)(
i)
and
an
estimate
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
under
the
calculation
baseline.
The
documentation
may
include
historical
data
that
are
representative
of
the
current
operation
of
the
facility
and
of
biological
conditions
at
the
site.
Impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
samples
to
support
the
calculations
required
in
paragraph
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
C)
and
(
b)(
5)(
iii)
would
be
collected
during
periods
of
representative
operational
flows
for
the
intake
and
the
flows
associated
with
the
samples
would
be
documented
[
§
125.104
(
b)(
3)(
iii)],
and,

°
Maintain
a
copy
of
the
study
and
the
materials
required
to
produce
it
for
three
years
after
submittal.
34
November
24,
2004
Technology
Compliance
and
Assessment
Information
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
and
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities)

If
the
facility
chooses
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103,
the
existing
facility
would
submit,
as
stipulated
under
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i),
for
existing
manufacturers
and
under
§
125.134(
b)(
4)
and/
or
(
5)
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
which
includes
the
following:

°
The
capacity
utilization
rate
for
the
facility
and
supporting
data
(
including
the
average
annual
net
generation
of
the
facility
(
in
Mwh)
measured
over
a
five
year
period
(
if
available)
of
representative
operating
conditions
and
the
total
net
capability
of
the
facility
(
in
MW))
and
underlying
calculations,
and
an
explanation
of
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
in
place
or
selected,
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i);

°
A
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
or
proposed),
including
fish­
handling
and
return
systems,
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
will
use
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
of
those
species
expected
to
be
most
susceptible
to
impingement,
and
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technology
or
operational
measures
for
those
species
[
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
A)];

°
A
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
or
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
will
use
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
entrainment
of
those
species
expected
to
be
the
most
susceptible
to
entrainment,
and
information
that
demonstrates
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures
for
those
species
[
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
B)];

°
Calculations
of
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
would
be
achieved
by
the
technologies
and
operational
measures
the
facility
has
selected
based
on
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
In
determining
compliance
with
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
or
entrainment,
the
facility
would
first
determine
the
calculation
baseline
upon
which
to
assess
the
total
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
Reductions
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
from
this
baseline
as
a
result
of
any
design
and
construction
technologies
already
implemented
at
the
facility
should
be
added
to
the
reductions
expected
to
be
achieved
by
any
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
that
will
be
implemented.
Facilities
that
recirculate
a
portion
of
their
flow,
but
do
not
reduce
flow
sufficiently
to
satisfy
the
compliance
option
in
§
125.103(
a)(
1)(
i)
may
take
into
account
the
reduction
in
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
associated
with
the
reduction
in
flow
when
determining
the
net
reduction
associated
with
existing
technology
and
operational
measures.
This
estimate
would
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
based
on
the
species
that
are
found
at
the
site,
and/
or
operational
35
November
24,
2004
measures
and
may
be
determined
based
on
representative
studies
(
i.
e.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
or
pilot
studies
[
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
C)];

°
Design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
support
the
descriptions
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
A)
and
(
B)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
D)],
and
°
Maintenance
of
records
of
all
materials
used
to
develop
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
submittal.

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
consistent
with
requirements
at
§
125.136(
b)(
3).
The
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
would
demonstrate
that
the
facility
has
selected
and
will
implement
the
design
and
construction
technologies
necessary
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment.
The
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
would
require
delineation
of
the
hydrologic
zone
of
influence
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structure;
a
description
of
the
technologies
implemented
(
or
to
be
implemented)
at
the
facility;
the
basis
for
the
selection
of
that
technology;
the
expected
performance
of
the
technology,
and
design
calculations,
drawings
and
estimates
to
support
the
technology
description
and
performance.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
the
selection
of
a
specific
technology
or
a
group
of
technologies
will
depend
on
the
individual
facility
and
waterbody
conditions.

Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
If
an
existing
facility
proposes
compliance
based
on
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
(
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii)),
then
the
facility
would
be
required
to
submit
both
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
the
following:


A
list
of
operational
parameters
to
be
monitored
and
the
location
of
monitoring,
and
the
frequency
that
they
will
be
monitored,
as
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
A);


A
list
of
activities
to
optimize
efficacy
of
installed
technology
and
operational
measures,
as
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
B);
and,


A
schedule
and
methodology
for
assessing
the
efficacy
of
any
installed
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
in
achieving
applicable
performance
standards,
including
an
adaptive
management
plan
for
revising
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
technologies
if
your
assessment
indicates
that
performance
standards
are
not
being
achieved
(
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii)(
C)).
36
November
24,
2004
Restoration
Plan
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)

If
the
facility
proposes
to
use
restoration
measures,
the
following
information,
as
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
5)
would
be
submitted:

°
A
demonstration
that
the
facility
has
adequately
evaluated
the
use
of
design
and/
or
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
to
meet
the
performance
requirements
and
an
explanation
on
how
the
determination
that
restoration
would
be
more
feasible,
cost­
effective,
or
environmentally
desirable
was
made
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
i)];

°
A
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
restoration
measures
(
existing
and
proposed)
that
the
facility
has
in
place
or
will
use
to
produce
fish
and
shellfish
[
§
125.104
(
b)(
5)(
ii)];

°
Quantification
of
the
ecological
benefits
of
the
proposed
restoration
measures.
The
facility
would
use
information
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
required
in
paragraph
(
b)(
3)
of
this
section,
to
estimate
the
reduction
in
fish
and
shellfish
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
that
would
be
necessary
for
the
facility
to
comply
with
§
125.103(
b).
The
facility
would
then
calculate
the
production
of
fish
and
shellfish
that
it
will
achieve
with
the
restoration
measures
it
would
or
has
already
installed.
The
facility
would
include
a
discussion
of
the
nature
and
magnitude
of
uncertainty
associated
with
the
performance
of
these
restoration
measures.
The
facility
would
also
include
a
discussion
of
the
time
frame
within
which
these
ecological
benefits
are
expected
to
accrue
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
iii)];

°
Demonstration
of
compliance
with
performance
standards.
If
the
restoration
measures
address
the
same
fish
and
shellfish
species
identified
in
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
(
in­
kind
restoration),
the
facility
would
demonstrate
that
the
production
of
these
fish
and
shellfish
from
the
restoration
measures
meets
the
requirements
of
§
125.103(
b).
If
the
restoration
measures
address
fish
and
shellfish
species
different
from
those
identified
in
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
(
out­
of­
kind
restoration),
the
facility
would
demonstrate
that
the
restoration
measures
produce
ecological
benefits
substantially
similar
to
or
greater
than
those
that
would
be
realized
through
in­
kind
restoration.
Such
a
demonstration
should
be
based
on
applicable
multi­
agency
watershed
restoration
plans,
site­
specific
peer­
reviewed
ecological
studies,
and/
or
consultation
and
concurrence
of
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
natural
resource
agencies[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
iv)];

°
A
plan
utilizing
an
adaptive
management
method
for
implementing,
maintaining,
and
demonstrating
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected
and
for
determining
the
extent
to
which
the
restoration
measures,
or
the
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures,
have
met
the
applicable
performance
standards
under
§
125.103(
b)
and
(
c).
37
November
24,
2004
The
plan
would
include:

A
monitoring
plan
that
includes
a
list
of
the
restoration
parameters
that
would
be
monitored,
the
frequency
at
which
the
facility
will
monitor
them,
and
success
criteria
for
each
parameter;
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
v)(
A)]

A
list
of
activities
the
facility
would
undertake
to
ensure
the
efficacy
of
the
restoration
measures,
a
description
of
the
linkages
between
these
activities
and
the
items
in
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
iv)(
A),
and
an
implementation
schedule
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
v)(
B)];
and
A
process
for
revising
the
plan
as
new
information
including
monitoring
data,
becomes
available,
if
the
applicable
performance
standards
under
§
125.103
are
not
being
met
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
v)(
C)].

°
A
summary
of
any
past
ongoing
consultation
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
on
the
facility's
use
of
restoration
measures
including
a
summary
of
the
consultations
and
a
copy
of
any
written
comments
received
as
a
result
of
such
consultations
[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
vi)];

°
Design
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
to
document
that
the
facility's
proposed
restoration
measures
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures,
or
alone,
will
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103(
b)
and
(
c)[
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
vii)];
and
°
If
requested
by
the
Director,
a
peer
review
of
the
items
submitted
by
the
facility
under
paragraphs
(
b)(
3),
(
b)(
5)(
i),
(
ii),
(
iii),
(
iv),
(
v)
and
(
vi),
and
(
b)(
7)
of
this
section.
The
facility
would
choose
the
peer
reviewers
with
the
concurrence
of
the
Director
and
in
consultation
with
EPA
and
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fish
and
wildlife
potentially
affected
by
the
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s).
Peer
reviewers
should
have
appropriate
qualifications
(
e.
g.,
in
the
fields
of
geology,
engineering,
and/
or
biology)
depending
upon
the
materials
to
be
reviewed.][
§
125.104(
b)(
5)(
viii)];
and,

°
Maintain
documentation
of
all
materials
submitted
to
support
the
Restoration
Plan
for
a
period
of
three
years.

Information
to
Support
Site­
specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
If
a
facility
chooses
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available,
the
facility
would
provide,
as
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
6),
the
following
additional
information
with
its
application:
38
November
24,
2004
°
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study.
The
facility
would
perform
and
submit,
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
i),
the
results
of
a
Comprehensive
Cost
evaluation
Study
that
includes:

­
Engineering
cost
estimates
in
sufficient
detail
to
document
the
costs
of
implementing
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
at
the
facility
that
would
be
needed
to
meet
the
performance
requirements
in
§
125.103(
b)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
i)(
A)];
and,

­
A
demonstration
that
the
costs
documented
above
significantly
exceed
those
considered
by
the
Administrator
for
a
facility
in
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
i)(
B)];

°
Benefits
Valuation
Study.
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)
If
the
facility
is
seeking
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
because
of
costs
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.103(
b)
and
(
c)
at
the
site,
the
facility
would
prepare
a
Benefits
Valuation
Study
using
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements
of
§
125.103.
In
addition
to
the
valuation
estimates,
the
benefit
study
would
include
the
following:

­
A
description
of
the
methodology(
ies)
used
to
value
commercial,
recreational,
and
ecological
benefits
(
including
any
non­
use
benefits,
if
applicable)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
ii)(
A)];

­
Documentation
of
the
basis
for
any
assumptions
and
quantitative
estimates,
including
a
determination
of
entrainment
survival
at
the
facility
(
based
on
a
study
approved
by
the
Director)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
ii)(
B)];

­
An
analysis
of
the
effects
of
significant
sources
of
uncertainty
on
the
results
of
the
study
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
ii)(
C)];

­
If
requested
by
the
Director,
a
peer
review
of
the
items
the
facility
submitted
in
the
Benefits
Valuation
Study.
The
facility
would
choose
the
peer
reviewers
with
the
concurrence
of
the
Director
who
may
consult
with
EPA
and
Federal,
State,
and
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
management
agencies
with
responsibility
for
fish
and
wildlife
potentially
affected
by
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structure.
Peer
reviewers
should
have
appropriate
qualifications
depending
upon
the
materials
to
be
reviewed
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
ii)(
D)];
and,

­
A
narrative
description
of
any
non­
monetized
benefits
that
would
be
realized
at
the
site
if
the
facility
was
to
meet
the
performance
standards
and
a
qualitative
39
November
24,
2004
assessment
of
magnitude
and
significance
of
the
benefits
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
ii)(
E)].

°
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan.
Based
on
the
results
of
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and
possibly
the
Benefits
Valuation
Study,
the
facility
would
submit
a
Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan
to
the
Director
for
review
and
approval.
The
plan
would
contain
the
following
information:

­
A
narrative
description
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
existing
and
proposed
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
that
the
facility
has
selected
in
accordance
with
§
125.103(
a)(
5)
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
iii)(
A)];

­
An
engineering
estimate
of
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures.
This
estimate
would
include
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
the
suitability
of
the
technologies
or
operational
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and/
or
entrainment
(
as
applicable)
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish
based
on
representative
studies
(
e.
g.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and,
if
applicable,
site­
specific
technology
prototype
or
pilot
studies.
If
restoration
measures
will
be
used,
the
facility
would
provide
an
estimate
(
where
feasible)
of
the
increase
in
fish
and
shellfish
within
the
watershed
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
iii)(
B)];
and,

­
Design
and
engineering
calculations,
drawings,
and
estimates
prepared
by
a
qualified
professional
to
support
the
descriptions
required
above
[
§
125.104(
b)(
6)(
iii)(
C)].


Maintain
all
records
and
documentation
of
site
specific
studies
conducted
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years
after
submittal.

Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)

As
part
of
the
Study,
the
facility
would
prepare
a
plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
two
years
of
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures.
As
stipulated
in
§
125.104(
b)(
7),
the
verification
study
would
begin
once
the
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
are
implemented
and
continue
for
a
period
of
time
that
is
sufficient
to
demonstrate
that
the
facility
is
meeting
the
national
performance
standards
of
§
125.103(
b)
and
(
c).
40
November
24,
2004
The
plan
would
provide
the
following:


Description
of
the
frequency
of
monitoring
and
the
parameters
to
be
monitored
and
the
basis
for
determining
the
parameters
and
the
frequency
and
duration
for
monitoring
[
§
125.104(
b)(
7)(
i)];


A
proposal
for
methods
to
be
used
for
determining
compliance
with
the
performance
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
including
any
applicable
averaging
periods;
representative
species;
etc.;
[
§
125.104(
b)(
7)(
ii)];


A
proposal
on
how
naturally
moribund
fish
and
shellfish
that
enter
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
identified
and
taken
into
account
in
determining
compliance
with
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.103
[
§
125.104(
b)(
7)(
iii)];


A
description
of
the
information
to
be
included
in
a
bi­
annual
status
report
to
the
Director
[
§
125.104(
b)(
7)(
iv)],
and,


The
facility
would
maintain
all
documentation
supporting
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
for
a
period
of
at
least
three
years.

Annual
Activities
Biological
Monitoring
All
Phase
III
existing
facilities,
as
appropriate
to
the
compliance
alternative
selected,
would
need
to
monitor
both
impingement
and
entrainment
of
the
commercial,
recreational
and
forage
base
fish
and
shellfish
species
and
their
life
stages
identified
in
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
The
monitoring
methods
used
would
be
consistent
with
those
used
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR
costing,
EPA
is
assuming
that
the
facility
would
follow
the
monitoring
frequencies
identified
below
for
at
least
two
years
after
the
initial
permit
issuance.
After
that
time,
the
Director
may
approve
a
request
for
less
frequent
sampling
in
the
remaining
years
of
the
permit
term
and
when
the
permit
is
reissued,
if
supporting
data
show
that
less
frequent
monitoring
would
still
allow
for
the
detection
of
any
seasonal
and
daily
variations
in
the
species
and
numbers
of
individuals
that
are
impinged
or
entrained.

New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
conduct
monitoring
as
required
under
§
125.137
of
the
proposed
rule.

For
Phase
III
existing
manufacturers,
monitoring
activities
would
be
required
to
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan,
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
(
as
appropriate),
and
the
Restoration
Plan,
if
relevant.
Additional
monitoring
requirements
may
be
determined
by
the
Director.
41
November
24,
2004
Impingement
monitoring
involves
collecting
data
on
aquatic
organisms
trapped
on
the
outer
part
of
an
intake
structure
or
against
screening
devices
during
periods
of
cooling
water
withdrawal,
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
impinged
organisms.
Specific
monitoring
activities
may
include:

°
Collecting
samples
to
monitor
impingement
rates
for
each
species
over
a
24­
hour
period,
no
less
than
once
per
month
when
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
in
operation;

°
Enumerating
impinged
organisms;

°
Performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
rates;
and
°
Maintaining
records
of
impingement
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Entrainment
monitoring
involves
the
collection
of
data
on
eggs,
larvae,
and
other
plankton
incorporated
with
cooling
water
flow
(
entering
and
passing
through
a
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
into
a
cooling
water
system),
to
determine
the
taxa
and
abundance
of
entrained
organisms.
Specific
activities
may
include:

°
Collecting
samples
to
monitor
entrainment
rates
for
each
species
over
a
24­
hour
period,
no
less
than
biweekly
during
the
primary
period
of
reproduction,
larval
recruitment,
and
peak
abundance
when
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
in
operation;

°
Enumerating
entrained
organisms;

°
Performing
statistical
analyses
to
summarize
entrainment
rates;
and
°
Maintaining
records
of
entrainment
monitoring
results
for
at
least
three
years.

Status
Report
All
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
facilities
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
would
be
required
to
prepare
and
submit
a
biennial
status
report
that
details
compliance
with
requirements
set
by
the
proposed
rule
and
with
any
additional
provisions
specified
within
the
permit.
New
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
submit
their
status
report
annually.
Preparation
of
the
report
requires:

°
Compiling
biological
monitoring
records
for
each
cooling
water
intake
structure;
and
°
Maintaining
a
copy
of
the
report
for
a
period
of
three
years
after
its
submission.
42
November
24,
2004
Director
Activities
The
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
would
not
require
Directors
to
prepare
or
submit
any
reports,
beyond
what
is
currently
required
of
them
under
the
NPDES
program.
However,
Directors
would
need
to
review,
maintain
records
of,
and
make
permitting
determinations
based
upon
all
documents
and
reports
submitted
to
them
by
existing
facilities.

NPDES
program
Directors
would
act
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
the
proposed
rule
as
required
under
§
125.107.
Section
316(
b)
requirements
are
implemented
for
a
facility
through
an
NPDES
permit.
To
successfully
meet
their
responsibilities,
EPA
anticipates
that
Directors
will
be
involved
in
reviewing
application
studies
and
developing
permit
conditions.
Upon
rule
promulgation,
the
following
activities
are
expected:

°
Reading
and
understanding
the
rule;

°
Mobilization
and
planning;
and
°
Training
facility
and
consultant
staff.

Following
receipt
of
a
permit
application,
the
Director
would
conduct
the
following
activities
as
described
in
§
125.107(
a)
and
(
b)
and
below.

Application
Activities
The
Director
would
determine
which
of
the
standards
specified
in
§
125.103
to
apply
to
the
facility.
In
addition,
the
Director
would
review
materials
to
determine
compliance
with
the
applicable
standards.
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
the
Director
would
review
materials
submitted
in
accordance
with
§
125.134
of
the
proposed
rule.

If
a
facility
submits
a
request
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
a)(
3)
to
reduce
the
information
about
their
cooling
water
intake
structures
and
the
source
waterbody
required
to
be
submitted
in
their
permit
application
[
this
request
is
not
authorized
in
the
first
permit
term
after
promulgation
of
this
rule],
the
Director
would
approve
the
request
within
60
days
if
conditions
at
the
facility
and
in
the
waterbody
remain
unchanged
since
their
previous
application.

At
each
permit
renewal,
the
Director
would
review
the
application
materials
and
monitoring
data
to
determine
whether
requirements
for
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
should
be
included
in
the
permit
to
meet
the
national
performance
standards
in
§
125.103.

The
Director
would
review
materials
submitted
by
the
applicant
prior
to
each
renewal
period
to
determine
if
there
have
been
any
changes
in
facility
operations
or
physical
and
43
November
24,
2004
biological
attributes
of
the
source
waterbody.
Any
changes
should
be
evaluated
to
determine
the
need
for
additional
or
more
stringent
conditions
in
the
permit.

Permitting
Activities
The
Director
would
determine,
based
on
the
information
submitted
by
the
existing
facility
in
its
permit
application,
the
appropriate
requirements
and
conditions,
as
described
in
§
125.107(
b)(
1)
through
§
125.107(
b)(
4)
to
include
in
the
permit
based
on
the
compliance
alternative
in
§
125.103(
a)
selected
by
the
facility.
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
the
Director
would
develop
permit
conditions
following
the
review
of
the
information
submitted
under
§
125.136
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
Director
would
perform
the
following
in
developing
permit
conditions:

(
1)
Develop
Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Requirements.
Requirements
that
implement
the
applicable
provisions
of
§
125.103
would
be
included
in
the
permit
conditions.
The
Director
would
evaluate
the
performance
of
the
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
proposed
and
implemented
by
the
facility
and
require
additional
or
different
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measure,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
if
needed
to
meet
the
applicable
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction,
or
production,
requirements.

In
determining
compliance
with
the
performance
standards
for
facilities
proposing
to
increase
withdrawals
of
cooling
water
from
a
lake
(
other
than
a
Great
Lake)
or
a
reservoir
in
§
125.103(
b)(
3),
the
Director
would
consider
anthropogenic
factors
(
those
not
considered
"
natural")
unrelated
to
the
Phase
III
existing
facility's
cooling
water
intake
structures
that
can
influence
the
occurrence
and
location
of
a
thermocline.
Anthropogenic
factors
may
include
source
water
inflows,
other
water
withdrawals,
managed
water
uses,
wastewater
discharges,
and
flow/
level
management
practices
(
e.
g.,
some
reservoirs
release
water
from
deeper
bottom
layers).
The
Director
would
coordinate
with
appropriate
Federal,
State,
or
Tribal
fish
and
wildlife
agencies
to
determine
if
any
disruption
of
the
natural
thermal
stratification
resulting
from
the
increased
withdrawal
of
cooling
water
is
beneficial
to
the
management
of
fisheries.
The
Director
would
also
determine
whether
to
impose
more
stringent
conditions
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
other
applicable
State
and
Tribal
law,
or
other
Federal
Law.

To
develop
appropriate
requirements
for
the
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s),
the
Director
would
do
the
following:

(
i)
Review
and
approve
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
required
in
§
125.104(
b)(
4)
to
evaluate
the
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
design
and
construction
technology
and/
or
operational
measures
proposed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103(
b).;
44
November
24,
2004
(
ii)
If
the
facility
proposes
restoration
measures
in
accordance
with
§
125.103(
c),
review
and
approve
the
Restoration
Plan
required
under
§
125.104(
b)(
5)
to
determine
whether
the
proposed
measures,
alone
or
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures,
will
meet
the
requirements
under
§
125.103(
c);

(
iii)
In
each
reissued
permit,
include
a
condition
in
the
permit
requiring
the
facility
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
(
or
to
increase
fish
production,
if
applicable)
commensurate
with
the
efficacy
at
the
facility
of
the
installed
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
but
not
less
than
the
performance
standards
in
§
125.103;

(
iv)
If
the
facility
implements
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
measures
and
chooses
to
measure
compliance
for
the
first
five
years
(
and
second
five
years
if
applicable)
employing
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
4),
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
plan
and
require
the
facility
to
meet
the
terms
of
the
plan.
If
the
facility
implements
restorations
measures
and
chooses
to
measure
compliance
for
the
first
permit
term
(
or
subsequent
permit
terms,
if
applicable)
employing
a
Restoration
Plan
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
5),
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
plan
and
require
compliance
in
accordance
with
the
plan.
In
considering
a
permit
application,
the
Director
would
review
the
performance
of
the
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
implemented
and
require
additional
or
different
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
if
needed,
to
meet
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
reduction,
or
production,
requirements
for
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish;

(
v)
Review
and
approve
the
proposed
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
submitted
under
§
125.104(
b)(
7)
and
require
that
the
monitoring
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
whether
the
design
and
construction
technology,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103;

(
vi)
If
a
facility
requests
requirements
based
on
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Director
would
review
the
application
materials
submitted
under
§
125.104(
b)(
6)
and
any
other
information
submitted,
including
quantitative
and
qualitative
benefits,
that
would
be
relevant
to
a
determination
of
whether
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.
If
a
facility
submits
a
study
to
support
entrainment
survival
at
the
facility,
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
results
of
that
study.
If
the
Director
determines
that
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate,
the
Director
would
make
a
site­
45
November
24,
2004
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact
in
accordance
with
§
125.103(
a)(
5).
The
Director
would
request
revisions
to
the
information
submitted
by
the
facility
in
accordance
with
§
125.104(
b)(
6)
if
it
does
not
provide
an
adequate
basis
to
make
this
determination.
Any
site­
specific
performance
standard
established
based
on
new
and/
or
existing
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures,
would
achieve
an
efficacy
that
is,
in
the
Director's
judgement,
as
close
as
practicable
to,
but
that
does
not
result
in
costs
that
are
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
by
the
Administrator
or
the
benefits
of
establishing
the
applicable
performance
standards
in
§
125.103(
b);

(
vii)
In
developing
performance
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
inclusion
in
a
permit,
the
Director
would
review
information
on
proposed
methods
submitted
by
the
facility
under
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)(
D)
and/
or
(
b)(
5)(
iv),
evaluate
those
proposed
by
the
facility
and
other
available
methods,
and
specify
how
compliance
with
the
requirements
would
be
determined
including
the
averaging
period
for
determining
the
percent
reduction
or
production
required
by
the
performance
standards
and
restoration
requirements
in
§
125.103.
Compliance
for
facilities
who
choose
to
comply
with
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
for
the
first
five
years
(
and
second
five
years,
if
applicable)
after
promulgation
of
this
rule,
would
be
determined
based
on
the
successful
implementation
of
the
plan
in
accordance
with
§
125.103(
d).

(
2)
Develop
Monitoring
Conditions.
The
permit
would
require
the
facility
to
perform
the
monitoring
in
accordance
with
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
required
by
125.104(
b)(
7),
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
in
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
ii)
as
appropriate,
and
if
applicable,
the
Restoration
Plan
required
by
§
125.104(
b)(
5).
The
Director
would
consider
the
facility's
Verification
Monitoring
Plan,
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan,
and/
or
Restoration
Plan,
as
appropriate,
in
determining
additional
applicable
monitoring
requirements
in
accordance
with
§
125.105.
The
Director
may
modify
the
monitoring
program
when
the
permit
is
reissued
and
during
the
term
of
the
permit
based
on
changes
in
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.

(
3)
Require
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting.
At
a
minimum,
the
permit
would
require
the
facility
to
report
and
keep
records
specified
in
§
125.106.

(
4)
Approve
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
(
as
appropriate).
The
Director
would
conduct
the
following
to
approve
a
design
and
construction
technology:

(
i)
For
a
facility
that
chooses
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
installed
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
a
design
and
construction
technology
approved
in
accordance
with
§
125.108,
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
46
November
24,
2004
information
submitted
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
in
§
125.104(
b)(
4)(
i)
and
determine
if
they
meet
the
criteria
in
§
125.108;

(
ii)
If
a
person/
facility
requests
approval
of
a
technology
under
§
125.108(
b),
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
information
submitted
and
determine
its
suitability
for
widespread
use
at
facilities
with
similar
site
conditions
in
its
jurisdiction
with
minimal
study.
The
Director
would
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
the
technology
when
installed
in
accordance
with
the
required
design
criteria
and
site
conditions
to
consistently
meet
the
performance
requirements
in
§
125.103.
The
Director
may
only
approve
a
technology
following
public
notice
and
consideration
of
comment
regarding
such
approval.
47
November
24,
2004
5.
The
Information
Collected
 
Agency
Activities,
Collection,
Methodology
and
Information
Management
The
following
sections
describe
EPA
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5a.
Agency
Activities
EPA
is
responsible
for
promulgating
the
final
rule
and
overseeing
its
implementation.
Implementation
of
reporting
and
monitoring
requirements
would
rely
extensively
on
State
governments
in
those
States
that
have
authorization
under
CWA
section
402(
b)
to
implement
the
NPDES
permit
program.
In
States
that
do
not
have
NPDES
permitting
authority,
EPA
is
responsible
for
administering
the
program.
Under
these
circumstances,
EPA
would
perform
the
same
activities
as
those
outlined
for
Directors
in
Section
4.

EPA
would
also
be
involved
in
the
review
of
State­
issued
NPDES
permits
for
compliance
with
today's
proposed
rule.
EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
As
such,
EPA
assumes
that
it
would
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)
portions
of
State­
issued
NPDES
permits,
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.

5b.
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
Today's
proposed
rule
provides
minimum
requirements
regarding
the
type
of
information
collected.
Directors
of
NPDES
programs
are
primarily
responsible
for
determining
which
collection
method
and
information
management
strategy
is
most
appropriate.
EPA
would
maintain
some
of
the
compliance
data
in
its
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
database.
PCS
is
the
national
computerized
management
information
system
that
automates
entry,
updating,
and
retrieval
of
NPDES
data
and
tracks
permit
issuance,
permit
limits
and
monitoring
data,
and
other
data
pertaining
to
facilities
regulated
under
NPDES.
This
technology
reduces
the
burden
to
the
permitting
authority
of
gathering,
analyzing,
and
reporting
national
permit
and
water
quality
data.

Permitting
authorities
are
responsible
for
reviewing
permit
applications,
permits,
monitoring
reports,
etc.
to
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
data.
Permitting
authorities
are
also
responsible
for
entering
that
data
into
PCS.
Different
authorities
have
different
approaches
for
entering
the
data
into
PCS
and
different
approaches
for
checking
data
quality.
This
includes
the
use
of
coding
forms,
double­
entry,
technical
review,
etc.
Many
48
November
24,
2004
States
have
developed
State
databases
that
are
tailored
to
individual
State
needs
with
the
system
formatted
for
uploads
directly
to
PCS
from
the
State
system.
Permit
data
can
be
accessed
by
the
public
in
one
of
two
ways:

°
Via
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
by
submitting
a
request
to
EPA
or
the
State.

°
Via
an
on­
line
query
using
EPA's
Envirofacts
Data
Warehouse
and
Applications
website
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
enviro/
index_
java.
html.
Accessing
data
via
Envirofacts
provides
a
method
to
combine
PCS
data
with
other
EPA
databases
and
mapping
tools.

5c.
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
minimum
design
intake
flow
requirements
in
today's
proposed
rule
would
exclude
all
but
one
small
entity
from
the
compliance
requirements.
The
affected
facility
is
estimated
to
have
a
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
of
less
than
one
percent.

EPA
considers
the
proposed
information
collection
and
reporting
requirements
to
be
the
minimum
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
section
316(
b)
goal
of
"
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact"
is
met.
Because
small
entities
constitute
a
very
small
share
of
the
potentially
affected
facilities
and
because
only
a
small
percentage
of
all
small
entities
in
the
affected
industries
are
subject
to
the
rule,
providing
them
greater
flexibility
such
as
less
frequent
data
collection
and
reporting
requirements
would
not
have
a
large
effect
on
their
overall
burden,
but
could
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
proposed
rule.
Furthermore,
because
the
reporting
requirements
differ
by
source
waterbody
type
and
compliance
alternative
selected,
entities
of
all
sizes
have
the
flexibility
to
minimize
their
total
compliance
costs
including
the
costs
and
burden
of
information
collection
requirements.

5d.
Collection
Schedule
Under
the
50
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option,
EPA
anticipates
that
56
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Due
to
the
multiple
years
of
data
that
would
be
collected
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
the
permitting
process
is
anticipated
to
take
up
to
three
years
to
complete.
However,
of
the
56
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
projected
to
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
65
(
46
existing
manufacturers
and
19
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
are
scheduled
to
have
permits
issued
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period;
these
facilities
would
be
on
an
accelerated
schedule
and
thus
would
receive
their
permits
as
scheduled.
EPA
assumes
that
these
facilities
would
have
reopener
clauses
included
in
their
permits
to
allow
for
the
results
of
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
49
November
24,
2004
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
to
be
submitted
after
permit
issuance
and
for
the
permits
to
be
modified
based
on
the
results
of
these
studies,
if
necessary.
The
remaining
22
(
10
existing
manufacturers
and
12
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
would
not
receive
their
initial
permit
renewals
until
after
the
ICR
approval
period,
and
thus
would
have
sufficient
time
to
perform
their
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
prior
to
receiving
their
initial
permit
renewals.

Fifty­
six
existing
manufacturing
facilities
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Of
these
56
manufacturers,
27
would
complete
the
process
and
annual
monitoring
and
biannual
reporting
activities.
Of
the
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
that
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
20
would
begin
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

Under
the
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option,
EPA
anticipates
that
13
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Of
the
13
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
projected
to
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
28
(
9
existing
manufacturers
and
19
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
are
scheduled
to
have
permits
issued
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period;
these
facilities
would
be
on
an
accelerated
schedule
and
thus
would
receive
their
permits
as
scheduled.
The
remaining
16
(
4
existing
manufacturers
and
12
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
would
not
receive
their
initial
permit
renewals
until
after
the
ICR
approval
period,
and
thus
would
have
sufficient
time
to
perform
their
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
prior
to
receiving
their
initial
permit
renewals.

Thirteen
existing
manufacturing
facilities
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Of
these
13
manufacturers,
5
would
complete
the
process
and
annual
monitoring
and
biannual
reporting
activities.
Of
the
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
that
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period
20
would
begin
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

Under
the
100
MGD
for
certain
waterbodies
option,
EPA
anticipates
that
11
Phase
III
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation.
Of
the
11
existing
manufacturing
and
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
projected
to
fall
within
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period,
27
(
8
existing
manufacturers
and
19
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
are
scheduled
to
have
permits
issued
during
the
three­
year
ICR
approval
period;
these
facilities
would
be
on
an
accelerated
schedule
and
thus
would
receive
their
permits
as
scheduled.
The
remaining
15
(
3
existing
manufacturers
and
12
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
would
not
receive
their
initial
permit
renewals
until
after
the
ICR
approval
period,
and
thus
would
have
sufficient
time
to
perform
their
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
prior
to
receiving
their
initial
permit
renewals.
50
November
24,
2004
Eleven
existing
manufacturing
facilities
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Of
these
11
manufacturers,
7
would
complete
the
process
and
annual
monitoring
and
biannual
reporting
activities.
Of
the
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
that
begin
the
application
process
during
the
ICR
approval
period
20
would
begin
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

Exhibit
5
provides
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
the
existing
manufacturing
facilities,
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.
The
schedules
for
the
three
options
proposed
are
shown
separately
on
Exhibit
5.
Exhibit
6
presents
the
estimated
implementation
schedule
for
the
31
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

Exhibit
5.
Number
of
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection:
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
Type
of
Activity
ICR
Approval
Period
2010­
2011
2011­
2012
2012­
2013
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
31
17
8
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Biannual
Reporting
of
Operations
0
12
15
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
7
5
1
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Biannual
Reporting
of
Operations
0
1
4
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
8
3
0
Existing
Manufacturers
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Biannual
Reporting
of
Operations
0
1
6
51
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
6.
Number
of
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Assumed
to
Begin
Compliance
with
Information
Collection:
Requirements
During
the
ICR
Approval
Period
by
Year
Type
of
Activity
ICR
Approval
Period
2010­
2011
2011­
2012
2012­
2013
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Beginning
the
NPDES
Permit
Application
Process
31
0
0
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Beginning
Annual
Monitoring
and
Annual
Reporting
of
Operations
0
7
13
52
November
24,
2004
6.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection
The
following
sections
present
the
proposed
rationale,
assumptions
made
and
results
of
EPA's
estimation
of
burden
and
costs
for
the
implementation
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule.
Specific
respondent
activities
were
detailed
in
section
4b(
ii).

6a.
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
This
section
describes
the
burden
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
and
assumptions
made
to
derive
them.
Respondent
activities
are
separated
into
those
activities
associated
with
the
NPDES
permit
application
and
those
activities
associated
with
monitoring
and
reporting
after
the
permit
is
issued.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
permit
cycle
is
every
five
years,
while
ICRs
would
be
renewed
every
three
years.
Therefore,
the
application
activities
occur
only
once
per
facility
during
an
ICR
approval
period,
and
so
they
would
be
considered
one­
time
burden
for
the
purpose
of
this
ICR.
By
contrast,
the
monitoring
activities
that
occur
after
issuance
of
the
permit
for
both
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
occur
on
an
annual
basis,
while
reporting
activities
occur
on
a
biennial
basis
for
existing
manufacturers
and
on
an
annual
basis
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
For
estimates
of
repermitting
burdens
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
12
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
13
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
12
and
B.
13
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.

Facility
Burdens
Information
collection
would
require
in­
scope
facilities
to
devote
time
(
i.
e.,
as
measured
by
staff
hours)
and
resources
(
e.
g.,
copies
of
documents
and
report
mailings)
to
produce
the
necessary
NPDES
permit
applications,
implementation
plans,
and
biannual
or
annual
status
reports,
as
required.
EPA
expects
that
facility
employees,
including
managers,
engineers,
engineering
technicians,
statisticians,
biologists,
biological
technicians,
draftsmen,
and
clerical
staff,
would
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
To
develop
representative
profiles
of
each
employee's
relative
contribution,
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
typically
found
in
manufacturing
facilities
and
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
In
doing
this,
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
a
variety
of
tasks:
reviewing
instructions,
planning
responses,
researching
data
sources,
gathering
and
analyzing
data,
typing
or
writing
the
information
requested,
reviewing
results,
conferring
with
permitting
authorities
and
expert
consultants,
and
sending
documents.
53
November
24,
2004
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
would
use
contracted
services
to
perform
many
of
their
required
sampling
and
analyzing
tasks.
The
contracted
staff
are
likely
to
include
project
managers,
biologists,
statisticians,
and
biological
technicians.
The
work
done
by
these
contracted
employees
would
be
done
on­
site
on
a
regular
basis.
Therefore,
the
hourly
burdens
associated
with
their
work
are
included
in
the
overall
burden
estimates
for
each
facility.

For
each
activity
burden
assumption,
EPA
selected
time
estimates
to
reflect
the
expected
effort
necessary
to
carry
out
these
activities
under
normal
conditions
and
reasonable
labor
efficiency
rates.
EPA
assumed
that
the
majority
of
the
actual
work
performed
by
facility
staff,
such
as
researching,
collecting,
and
analyzing
data,
as
well
as
writing
the
documents,
would
be
carried
out
by
junior
technical
staff.
Burdens
associated
with
managerial
and
senior
engineering
staff
include
time
for
actions
such
as
occasional
or
seasonal
visits
to
supervise
sampling
efforts,
as
well
as
periodic
review
of
lab
results
and
documentation.
EPA
assumed
that
the
facilities
would
employ
a
drafter
to
perform
computer
aided
drafting
(
CAD)
operations.
For
contracted
employees,
EPA
assumed
that
the
majority
of
the
work
would
be
carried
out
by
the
biologists
and
the
biological
technicians.

Exhibits
7
and
8
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
the
NPDES
permit
application
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
for
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
respectively.
Exhibits
9
and
10
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
facilities
performing
annual
monitoring,
and
annual
reporting
activities
for
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
respectively.
Activities
performed
by
existing
manufacturers
differ
somewhat
from
those
performed
by
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
the
Phase
III
requirements
for
existing
manufacturers
are
similar
to
those
promulgated
for
existing
electric
generators
under
Phase
II,
while
the
Phase
III
requirements
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
consistent
with
the
requirements
promulgated
for
new
facilities
under
§
125.136
of
the
proposed
rule.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
hourly
burdens
for
facilities
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
1
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
2
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
1
and
B.
2
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
54
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
7.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Start­
up
Activities
43
43
43
Permit
Application
Activities
247
247
247
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
272
272
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
101
100
na
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
80
86
92
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
9,089
9,089
9,089
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
for
Existing
Manufacturers
16,783
16,783
16,783
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology*
na
na
na
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,556
1,556
1,556
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
1,185
1,185
1,185
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
1,859
1,859
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
52
52
52
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
128
128
Total**
31,395
31,400
31,306
*
During
the
initial
ICR
approval
period,
no
facilities
were
identified
which
required
pilot
study
costs
for
Freshwater
Impingement
only
and
these
activities
were
not
costed.

**
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
burden
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
55
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
8.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden(
hrs)*

Start­
up
Activities
43
Permit
Application
Activities
25
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
38
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
36
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
in
Gulf
of
Mexico
751
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
in
Alaska
2,422
Total**
3,315
*
Some
of
the
burdens
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
facilities
are
based
on
the
hourly
burden
for
a
regional
study
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico,
where
the
burden
is
shared
by
all
the
participants.

**
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
burden
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
EPA
assumed
that
all
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
pursue
Track
I
application
of
today's
proposed
rule
because
it
is
unknown
how
many
facilities
would
select
Track
I
versus
Track
II
application.
Hence
the
actual
burden
may
be
different
than
presented
here.

The
activities
listed
in
the
first
column
of
Exhibits
7
through
10
correspond
to
the
facility
respondent
activities
outlined
earlier
in
Section
4b(
ii).
All
facilities
would
be
subject
to
the
start­
up
and
permit
application
activities
listed
in
Exhibits
7
and
8.
For
the
other
listed
activities
only
a
subset
of
facilities
are
expected
to
perform
them.
The
set
of
activities,
that
each
facility
is
estimated
to
perform
is
based
on
the
rule
requirements
that
the
facility
is
subject
to
and
the
type
of
waterbody
from
which
it
withdraws
water.
For
a
detailed
presentation
of
the
number
of
facilities
performing
each
activity
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
5
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
6
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
5
and
B.
6
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
56
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
9.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
379
379
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
482
482
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
614
614
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
776
776
Biannual
Status
Report
Activities
324
324
324
Verification
Study
122
122
122
Total
2,697
2,697
2,697
Exhibit
10.
Average
Burden
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)*

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)**
159
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)**
52
Velocity
Monitoring
163
Annual
Status
Report
Activities
223
Total***
597
*
Some
of
the
burdens
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
based
on
the
hourly
burden
for
a
regional
study
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico,
where
the
burden
is
shared
by
all
the
participants.

**
The
burden
for
collecting
biological
monitoring
data
for
impingement
and
entrainment
varies
between
different
operating
regions.
Therefore
the
burden
reported
here
is
a
weighted
average
for
the
facility
burdens
in
Alaska
and
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.

***
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
burden
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed,
e.
g.,
MODUs
are
not
required
to
conduct
monitoring
except
as
determined
by
the
Director.

Start­
Up
Activities
In
Exhibits
7
and
8,
the
start­
up
burdens
account
for
reading
the
published
regulations,
sample
permits,
and
any
guidance
materials
associated
with
the
rule;
determining
the
required
staff
and
resources
necessary
to
successfully
complete
the
application
process,
57
November
24,
2004
and
meet
all
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements;
and
training
staff
to
perform
tasks
that
they
would
not
be
required
to
conduct
if
the
rule
were
not
implemented.
It
is
assumed
for
the
analysis
that
facilities
would
receive
their
reissued
permits
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
Thus,
during
the
first
year
(
2010),
facilities
would
perform
permit
application
activities
for
their
permits
that
are
reissued
at
the
beginning
of
the
second
year
(
2011).
It
is
also
assumed
that
facilities
that
become
subject
to
the
rule
during
the
first
three
years
would
be
granted
an
accelerated
permit
approval
process
so
that
permit
reissuance
is
not
delayed.
In
subsequent
years,
facilities
required
to
perform
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Studies
would
need
to
begin
collecting
monitoring
data
two
to
three
years
prior
to
permit
renewal.
Furthermore,
all
facilities
would
begin
the
other
permit
application
activities
in
the
year
just
prior
to
receiving
their
reissued
permits.
These
start­
up
activities,
applicable
to
all
facilities,
are
assumed
to
be
performed
by
facility
management
and
junior
technical
staff.

Permit
Application
Activities
Permit
application
activities
refer
to
the
development
and
submittal
of
the
required
elements
of
the
application
for
reissuance
of
the
NPDES
permit.

As
part
of
the
permit
application
process,
all
Phase
III
existing
manufacturers
would
gather
source
water
physical
data,
cooling
water
intake
structure
data
and
cooling
water
system
data.
Phase
III
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
not
required
to
gather
cooling
water
system
data,
but
they
are
required
to
provide
information
on
intake
velocity,
as
well
as
the
source
physical
data
and
cooling
water
intake
structure
data.
EPA
anticipates
that
much
of
the
data
required
to
characterize
the
waterbody
and
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
has
already
been
gathered
by
the
facility,
and
that
much
of
the
actual
facility
burden
is
from
deriving
the
requested
information
from
this
data.

The
Minerals
Management
Service
(
MMS)
requires
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facility
operators
to
submit
information
on
cooling
water
intake
structures
as
part
of
their
drilling
plans,
so
much
of
the
information
required
for
the
basic
permit
application
requirements
(
e.
g.,
source
water
physical
data,
operational
narrative
of
the
cooling
water
system)
would
have
already
been
compiled.
Offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facility
operators
are
assumed
to
review
the
MMS
information
and
apply
it
as
needed
for
the
required
permit
application
information.
However,
it
is
also
assumed
that
the
MMS
information
would
not
be
completely
sufficient
to
meet
all
the
application
information
requirements.
As
a
result
of
the
availability
of
the
MMS
information,
operators
are
assumed
to
spend
approximately
75%
less
time
than
that
incurred
by
land
based
facilities.

To
derive
the
source
water
physical
data,
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
would
work
with
a
Computer­
Aided
Drafting
(
CAD)
operator
to
develop
a
description
of
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody
where
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
is
located,
including
areal
dimensions,
depths,
salinity,
and
temperature
regimes.
The
CAD
operator
would
produce
scaled
drawings
showing
the
physical
configuration
of
the
source
waterbody
and
prepare
locational
maps
of
the
waterbody.
The
junior
technical
staff
would
58
November
24,
2004
use
this
information
and
available
data
to
produce
a
report
characterizing
and
documenting
the
hydrological
and
geomorphological
features
of
the
source
waterbody.
Depending
on
the
extent
of
existing
information
it
may
be
necessary
for
some
facilities
to
conduct
physical
studies
to
determine
the
intake's
area
of
influence
within
the
waterbody.

Cooling
water
intake
structure
data
would
be
used
to
develop
a
report
on
the
operation
of
the
intake
structure.
EPA
assumes
that
a
CAD
operator
would
assist
junior
technical
staff
in
preparing
a
narrative
description
of
the
configuration
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
its
location
within
the
waterbody
and
in
the
water
column,
including
measurements
of
the
latitude
and
longitude
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
In
addition,
junior
technical
staff
would
develop
a
narrative
that
describes
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
including
design
flows,
daily
hours
of
operation,
number
of
days
of
the
year
in
operation,
and
seasonal
changes,
if
applicable.
Management
would
review
and
revise
this
data.

Junior
technical
staff
would
also
develop
a
narrative
characterizing
the
facility's
cooling
water
system,
which
includes
a
flow
distribution
and
water
balance
diagram
for
the
facility
depicting
all
sources
of
water
to
the
facility,
recirculating
flows,
and
discharges.
Management
would
review
and
revise
this
characterization.
EPA
also
anticipates
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
perform
engineering
calculations
for
the
source
waterbody
and
cooling
water
intake
structure
documents.
Management
would
review
and
revise
these
calculations.

In
addition,
Phase
III
facilities
would
be
required
to
comply
with
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
requirements
depending
on
the
compliance
alternative
selected.
Facilities
that
already
have
a
closed­
cycle
recirculating
system
are
not
required
to
submit
a
Study
and
facilities
that
already
have
a
design
intake
flow
of
0.5
feet
per
second
or
less
are
also
exempted
from
impingement
requirements.
However,
facilities
choosing
to
install
new
technologies
rather
than
reducing
flows
to
levels
commensurate
with
closed­
cycle
recirculating
systems
are
required
to
gather
and
submit
additional
information
in
the
form
of
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
to
confirm
that
the
technology(
ies),
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
proposed
and/
or
implemented
at
the
intake
meet
the
applicable
performance
standards.
See
section
4b(
ii)
for
additional
details.

The
Study
characterizes
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment,
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
and
confirms
that
the
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures
the
facility
has
selected
and/
or
implemented
at
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
meet
the
applicable
requirements
prior
to
each
permit
renewal
application.
The
Study
entails
a
proposal
for
information
collection,
source
waterbody
flow
information,
an
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
technology
compliance
and
assessment
information,
Restoration
Plan,
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
information
to
support
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
and
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
The
facility
hourly
burdens
for
demonstrating
compliance
with
these
59
November
24,
2004
requirements
include
developing
and
submitting
narrative
descriptions,
supporting
documentation,
and
engineering
calculations.

Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
Requirements
Proposal
for
Information
Collection
As
a
first
step
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
facility
would
develop
and
submit
a
proposal
for
the
collection
of
information
to
support
the
Study.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
would
develop
a
list
and
description
of
any
historical
studies
characterizing
impingement
and
entrainment
and/
or
the
physical
and
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
intakes
and
their
relevancy
to
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
The
facility
management
would
review
the
collected
information
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
existing
data
are
representative
of
current
conditions,
are
sufficient
to
develop
a
scientifically
valid
estimate
of
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
were
collected
using
appropriate
quality
assurance/
quality
control
procedures.
Junior
technical
staff
are
assumed
to
develop
a
description
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
and
restoration
measures
to
be
evaluated
in
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
Facility
management
would
review
and
revise
this
description.
EPA
assumes
that
the
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
be
able
to
use
the
MMS
information
for
parts
of
their
proposal
for
information
collection.

Although
some
facilities
are
likely
to
have
sufficient
available
information
to
forego
an
extensive
monitoring
study,
EPA
assumes
that
all
existing
manufacturers
performing
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
would
perform
an
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
involving
between
two
and
three
years
of
monitoring.
Therefore,
these
facilities
would
need
to
develop
and
submit
a
source
water
sampling
plan
that
documents
all
methods
and
quality
assurance
procedures
for
sampling
and
data
analysis,
as
well
as
describes
the
study
area
(
including
the
area
of
influence
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
at
least
100
meters
beyond).
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
review
source
water
and
cooling
water
intake
structure
data.
They
would
use
this
information
to
write
a
draft
of
the
source
water
sampling
plan.
A
CAD
operator
would
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
in
this
effort.
The
facility
manager
would
supervise
this
effort,
review
the
draft,
and
consult
with
the
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
that
would
perform
the
monitoring.
The
contracted
manager
would
review
the
draft
and
provide
feedback.
EPA
assumes
that
all
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
not
perform
an
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
Instead
these
facilities
would
submit
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data.

Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
facilities
with
intakes
located
on
freshwater
rivers/
streams
would
submit
source
waterbody
flow
information.
This
information
is
used
to
determine
the
impact
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
on
the
60
November
24,
2004
natural
flow
of
the
source
water
and
is
an
important
factor
in
determining
the
appropriate
technologies.
Similarly,
facilities
with
intakes
on
freshwater
lakes
or
reservoirs
need
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
disrupts
the
thermal
stratification
of
the
waterbody.
EPA
anticipates
that
most
facilities
would
have
ready
access
to
existing
flow
and
thermal
stratification
information.
However,
EPA
assumes
that
some
facilities
would
need
to
take
flow
or
thermal
stratification
measurements
immediately
around
the
intake.
Junior
technical
staff
are
expected
to
gather
existing
information
and
take
measurements
for
freshwater
river
and
stream
flows,
and
for
lakes
and
reservoirs.
Junior
technical
staff
would
perform
engineering
calculations
and
develop
a
report.
Facility
management
would
review
and
revise
this
information.

Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
The
required
level
of
effort
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
is
likely
to
vary
considerably
depending
on
the
availability
of
existing
data
and
the
complexity
of
the
habitat
and
waterbody
in
which
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
would
be
located.
For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
it
is
assumed
that
each
existing
facility
that
is
required
to
perform
a
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
would
also
perform
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
.
EPA
assumes
that
the
sampling
required
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
would
take
two
years
for
facilities
drawing
from
freshwater
bodies
and
three
years
for
those
facilities
drawing
from
marine
waters.
Therefore,
the
entire
application
process
can
take
up
to
three
years
to
complete.
The
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
activities
would
be
performed
in
years
prior
to
the
reissuance
of
the
NPDES
permit.

This
estimate
takes
into
account
that
some
facilities
would
have
access
to
existing
data,
which
may
allow
them
to
reduce
the
duration
of
the
monitoring
period,
while
other
facilities
may
require
additional
time
due
to
the
confounding
effects
of
other
factors
such
as
very
dry
years
or
fish
kills
due
to
red
tides.
Facilities
that
become
subject
to
the
rule
within
the
first
three
years
are
assumed
to
provide
the
Director
with
preliminary
study
results,
and
complete
the
monitoring
after
the
permit
has
been
issued,
to
avoid
delays
in
permit
reissuance.
The
monitoring
study
consists
of
an
extensive
sampling
effort
performed
primarily
by
contracted
employees,
and
then
the
characterization
of
the
data
in
the
form
of
a
study
report
that
is
produced
by
both
facility
and
contracted
employees.

To
accurately
characterize
the
effects
of
impingement
and
entrainment
on
the
aquatic
communities
found
in
the
source
water,
offshore
monitoring
would
occur
at
the
same
time
that
monitoring
for
impingement
and
entrainment
is
occurring.
As
a
result,
EPA
assumes
that
monitoring
is
performed
simultaneously
at
the
facility
for
impingement
and
entrainment,
and
offshore
at
the
edge
of
the
determined
zone
of
influence.
Since
impingement
more
often
impacts
adult
organisms,
while
entrainment
affects
juvenile
organisms,
offshore
samples
would
be
taken
of
both
juvenile
and
adult
organisms.
Therefore,
EPA
assumes
that
four
types
of
sampling
as
presented
in
Exhibit
11
would
occur.
61
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
11.
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
Sample
Types
Sample
Type
Location
of
Sample
Impingement
Sample*
At
the
intake
structure.

Entrainment
Sample
In
the
facility.

Offshore
Sample
for
Juvenile
Organisms
At
the
edge
of
the
zone
of
influence.

Offshore
Sample
for
Adult
Organisms
At
the
edge
of
the
zone
of
influence.

*
Impingement
sampling
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
facilities
is
accomplished
through
the
use
of
a
remote
monitoring
device
due
to
the
difficulty
of
taking
direct
samples
at
the
site
of
the
intake.

To
accurately
characterize
seasonal
and
annual
fluctuations
in
aquatic
communities
impacted
by
the
cooling
water
intake
structure,
EPA
assumes
sampling
is
performed
at
the
facility
on
a
biweekly
basis
over
two
years
for
freshwater
facilities
and
three
years
for
marine
facilities.
EPA
believes
that
a
sizable
majority
of
the
monitoring
work
would
be
carried
out
by
the
biologists
and
biological
technicians.
Over
the
course
of
the
study,
other
employees
would
also
spend
time
contributing
to
the
use
of
the
monitoring
data.

Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
(
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Only)

The
data
is
used
to
characterize
the
biological
community
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure
and
to
characterize
the
operation
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
data
includes
existing
data
(
if
available)
supplemented
with
new
field
studies
as
necessary.
In
an
effort
to
save
costs,
facilities
within
a
given
region
may
choose
to
conduct
a
regional
study
to
collect
this
information
as
approved
by
the
Director.
EPA
recognizes
that
many
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
are
regulated
under
NPDES
general
permits
and
that
regional
studies
are
often
conducted
as
part
of
the
general
permit
requirements.
MODUs
would
be
exempt
from
this
requirement.

Facilities
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
region
are
assumed
to
conduct
a
regional
study.
Three
existing
deepwater
oil
and
gas
platforms
and
three
MODUs
operating
in
deepwater
are
assumed
chosen
for
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
regional
study.
There
are
no
new
facilities
expected
in
California
so
there
is
no
California
regional
study.
There
is
one
new
facility
expected
in
Alaska,
so
there
is
no
regional
study
for
Alaska
either.
Instead
the
one
facility
is
assumed
to
perform
its
own
individual
monitoring.

For
the
six
Gulf
of
Mexico
facilities
and
the
one
Alaska
facility,
each
month
a
team
of
biologists
and
biological
technicians
is
expected
to
perform
the
sampling
over
a
two
day
period.
Impingement
monitoring
is
accomplished
with
the
use
of
a
remote
monitoring
device.
The
installation
of
the
remote
monitoring
device
is
assumed
to
cost
$
20,000
per
facility.
The
team
is
transported
out
to
the
facility
by
helicopter
and
picked
up
the
next
day.
The
cost
of
the
helicopter
is
assumed
to
be
$
12,000
per
year
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
and
$
18,000
per
year
in
Alaska.
Monitoring
is
expected
to
take
place
over
a
three
year
62
November
24,
2004
period.
The
results
of
the
regional
study
would
then
be
used
by
each
in­
scope
Gulf
of
Mexico
facility
to
complete
their
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
requirements.

Technology
and
Compliance
Assessment
Information
EPA
assumes
that
the
portion
of
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
(
and
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan,
if
applicable)
associated
with
evaluation
of
potential
cooling
water
intake
structure
effects
would
be
conducted
during
the
year
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
NPDES
permit,
to
allow
the
facility
time
to
incorporate
information
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
already
underway.

Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
If
the
facility
chooses
to
use
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
in
whole
or
in
part
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103,
the
facility
would
also
submit
a
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
as
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study.
EPA
assumes
that
a
CAD
operator
would
delineate
the
hydraulic
zone
of
influence,
and
that
junior
technical
staff
would
assist
the
CAD
operator,
and
management
would
review
this
work.
Junior
technical
staff
would
perform
engineering
calculations
to
determine
anticipated
impingement
rates,
and
develop
narrative
descriptions
of
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies
or
operational
measures
(
existing
and
proposed),
used
to
meet
the
requirements
to
reduce
impingement
mortality.
Management
would
review
the
calculations
and
write­
up.
Those
facilities
that
need
to
address
entrainment
would
spend
approximately
the
same
amount
of
time
performing
engineering
calculations
and
developing
a
narrative
description.

As
part
of
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
facilities
would
include
a
sitespecific
evaluation
of
the
technology(
ies)
and/
or
operational
measures.
This
site­
specific
evaluation
can
be
based
on
representative
studies
(
i.
e.,
studies
that
have
been
conducted
at
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics)
and/
or
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies.
EPA
assumes
for
the
site­
specific
technology
prototype
studies,
that
the
facilities
would
conduct
an
on­
site
pilot
study
for
the
technology
or
operational
measure.

In
general,
pilot
study
costs
vary.
The
variables
that
affect
pilot
study
costs
are
regulations,
testing
protocols,
and
testing
duration.
Pilot
equipment
is
either
rented
or
manufactured
to
suit
specific
site
conditions.
Generally,
a
typical
ratio
of
total
pilot
study
costs
to
the
actual
technology
costs
is
less
than
one
to
ten
for
technologies
that
cost
more
than
one
million
dollars.
Therefore,
EPA
assumes
that
facilities
would
be
willing
to
spend
10%
of
the
technology
installation
cost
on
a
pilot
study
to
determine
if
the
technology
would
function
properly
when
installed
and
operated.
63
November
24,
2004
An
important
cost
element
in
the
pilot
study
is
the
cost
of
monitoring.
EPA
realizes
that
the
amount
of
monitoring
necessary
would
vary
depending
on
the
technology
and
the
biological
characteristics
of
the
source
water.
However,
EPA
assumes
that
a
typical
monitoring
effort
would
involve
five
samples
being
collected
over
a
twenty­
four
hour
period,
every
two
weeks
for
six
months.
Facilities
would
need
to
analyze
the
data,
summarize
the
results,
and
use
this
information
as
the
basis
for
their
site­
specific
evaluation.
EPA
estimates
that
the
pilot
study
monitoring
and
reporting
costs
would
typically
range
between
$
50,000
and
$
110,000
for
a
facility,
depending
on
the
source
water
type
and
whether
the
facility
would
need
to
monitor
for
both
impingement
and
entrainment
or
just
impingement.

The
installation
costs
for
the
range
of
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
vary
widely,
with
the
capital
costs
of
the
relatively
inexpensive
technologies
being
less
than
$
500,000.
EPA
assumes
that
the
financial
risk
to
facilities
installing
relatively
low
cost
technologies
(
in
comparison
to
a
facility's
overall
cost
of
operation,
revenues,
or
anticipated
benefits)
are
not
likely
to
warrant
conducting
a
pilot
study.
In
these
cases,
EPA
believes
that
facilities
with
low
cost
technology
options
would
forgo
a
pilot
study
and
install
the
proposed
technology
based
on
existing
performance
information
or
manufacturer's
guarantee
to
cover
the
cost
of
dismantling
the
equipment.
The
facility
would
then
use
the
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
to
evaluate
how
well
the
technology
performs.
EPA
assumes
that
when
the
capital
cost
for
the
proposed
technology
is
less
than
$
500,000
the
facility
would
not
perform
a
pilot
study.
A
pilot
study
may
not
be
practical
for
some
of
the
proposed
technologies,
such
as
widening
the
opening
of
the
intake
structure
to
reduce
intake
velocity.
EPA
assumes
that
pilot
studies
would
not
be
practical
for
all
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
For
those
facilities
anticipated
to
install
technologies
where
a
pilot
study
is
impractical,
EPA
assumes,
for
the
purpose
of
estimating
the
regulatory
economic
burden,
that
they
would
not
perform
pilot
studies
either.

To
develop
total
pilot
study
cost
estimates
for
facilities,
EPA
assumes
that
facilities
would
spend
approximately
10%
of
the
capital
costs
for
installing
the
proposed
technology
on
a
cooling
water
intake.
This
cost
covers
the
installation,
operation,
monitoring,
and
reporting
costs
associated
with
the
pilot
study.
However,
EPA
assumes
that
the
minimum
cost
to
perform
an
acceptable
pilot
study,
including
monitoring
would
be
$
150,000.
Therefore,
if
10%
of
a
facility's
technology
cost
was
below
$
150,000,
the
facility
was
automatically
assigned
a
cost
of
$
150,000.
EPA
assumes
that
facilities
that
choose
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
installed
and
are
properly
maintaining
and
operating
an
approved
technology
would
provide
the
Director
with
the
information
detailed
in
the
source
waterbody
flow
information
and
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
and
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
It
would
be
up
to
the
Director's
discretion
to
decide
whether
they
would
need
to
perform
a
pilot
study
or
the
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study.
However,
to
be
conservative,
EPA
has
assumed
that
these
facilities
would
perform
one
or
more
of
these
studies.
64
November
24,
2004
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
existing
manufacturers
would
include
a
plan
that
listed
all
operational
parameters
to
be
monitored,
as
well
as
the
location
and
frequency
of
the
annual
monitoring
efforts.
Furthermore,
the
plan
would
contain
a
list
of
the
activities
the
facility
would
perform
to
optimize
the
efficacy
of
installed
technology
and
operational
measures.
Finally,
the
plan
would
include
the
schedule
and
methodology
for
assessing
the
efficacy
of
any
installed
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
in
achieving
applicable
performance
standards,
including
an
adaptive
management
plan
for
revising
design
and
construction
technologies
and/
or
operational
technologies
if
the
assessment
indicates
that
performance
standards
are
not
being
achieved.

EPA
assumes
that
much
of
the
information
required
for
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
overlaps
with
the
information
gathered
for
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
The
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
requires
a
very
detailed
explanation
of
the
design
and
operation
of
new
technologies
and
how
they
will
work
to
reduce
impingement
and
entrainment
at
the
site
of
the
intake.
In
developing
this
information
facilities
will
have
to
consider
issues
of
installation
and
maintenance,
as
well
as
efficacy
assessment.
Therefore,
EPA
assumes
that
the
effort
required
by
facilities
to
gather
this
information
for
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan,
reduces
the
effort
burden
incurred
for
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.

Similarly,
the
time
and
effort
required
by
the
facility
to
develop
a
description
of
monitoring
parameters
and
to
characterize
efficacy
assessment
activities
directly
overlaps
with
the
effort
to
develop
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.
Therefore,
EPA
assumes
that
the
burden
for
these
activities
is
accounted
for
with
the
burden
incurred
for
the
Verification
Monitoring
Plan.

According
to
125.104(
b),
facilities
that
operate
and
maintain
an
approved
design
and
construction
technology
only
have
to
submit
the
TIOP
and
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
and
they
can
forgo
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
So
to
avoid
underestimating
costs,
we
may
want
to
account
for
the
overlap
between
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and
the
TIOP
by
reducing
the
burden
required
for
the
former
rather
than
the
latter.

Restoration
Plan
Facilities
are
not
required
to
use
restoration
measures
to
maintain
fish
and
shellfish,
but
may
voluntarily
choose
to
use
restoration
measures
to
supplement
design
and
construction
technologies.
EPA
thus
assumed
that
facilities
would
propose
to
use
restoration
measures
only
if
additional
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures
are
not
feasible
at
the
facility.
Therefore,
in
order
to
provide
a
conservative
estimate
of
burden
65
November
24,
2004
and
costs,
EPA
has
not
included
evaluation
of
the
proposed
restoration
measures
in
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates
for
facilities.

Information
to
Support
Site­
Specific
Determination
of
Best
Technology
Available
for
Minimizing
Adverse
Environmental
Impact
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
facilities
may
choose
to
request
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
in
lieu
of
meeting
the
performance
standards
of
§
125.103(
b).
If
a
facility
requests
a
site­
specific
evaluation
of
best
technology
available,
it
would
first
need
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
it
meets
one
of
two
cost
criteria.
The
first
criteria
requires
the
facility
to
demonstrate
that
its
cost
of
compliance
with
the
applicable
performance
standards
specified
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
costs
considered
when
the
performance
standards
were
established.
The
second
criteria
requires
a
facility
to
demonstrate
that
its
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
performance
standards
at
the
facility's
site.

For
the
purpose
of
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates,
EPA
assumed
that
all
respondents
requesting
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
would
claim
that
costs
outweighed
benefits,
and
therefore
would
perform
the
activities
associated
with
the
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
of
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment,
in
addition
to
performing
the
activities
associated
with
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and
the
Site­
specific
Technology
Plan.
Performing
the
site­
specific
determination
is
voluntary,
so
EPA
has
not
included
evaluation
of
the
proposed
site­
specific
measures
in
developing
the
ICR
cost
and
burden
estimates
for
facilities.
However,
EPA
recognizes
that
respondents
choosing
to
perform
activities
related
to
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
would
incur
additional
ICR
costs.
It
is
estimated
that
facilities
implementing
activities
related
to
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available,
including
the
preparation
of
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
and
Site­
specific
Technology
Plan
would
incur
an
average
burden
of
approximately
700
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
35,000
per
facility.
Depending
on
the
number
of
facilities
with
both
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements
choosing
to
pursue
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available,
the
above
ICR
burden
and
cost
would
be
reduced
accordingly.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
some
of
the
above
additional
cost
would
be
offset
by
reductions
in
technology
costs
for
these
facilities
since
these
facilities
may
receive
lowered
performance
requirements.

Though
only
a
small
percentage
of
the
facilities
are
expected
to
perform
activities
related
to
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available,
EPA
estimated
the
Director
burdens
for
reviewing
site­
specific
studies
for
all
facilities
with
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements.
66
November
24,
2004
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
EPA
assumes
that
for
a
facility
to
demonstrate
to
the
Director
that
its
actual
implementation
costs
would
be
higher
than
those
determined
by
EPA
in
achieving
the
performance
standards,
the
facility
would
need
to
provide
the
Director
with
detailed
information
about
the
site,
along
with
engineering
calculations
and
cost
estimates
used
to
justify
this
conclusion.
Much
of
the
site­
specific
information
would
have
been
gathered
during
the
initial
permit
application
process
and
the
source
water
baseline
biological
characterization.
Likewise,
many
of
the
initial
engineering
calculations
would
have
been
performed
for
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan.
Therefore,
the
main
effort
for
this
study
would
be
for
the
facility
to
justify
the
cost
estimates
it
claims
that
it
would
incur
to
install
and
operate
the
best
technology
available
to
meet
the
performance
standards.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
develop
cost
estimates
and
prepare
an
initial
draft
of
the
study.
The
facility
manager
would
oversee
the
work
done
by
the
junior
staff
and
revise
the
initial
draft.
The
junior
technical
staff
would
revise
and
finalize
the
report
for
final
draft
review
and
preparation
of
an
executive
summary
by
the
management.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.

Valuation
of
Monetized
Benefits
of
Reducing
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
After
the
detailed
list
of
impacted
species
is
developed,
facility
and
contracted
staff
would
work
together
to
develop
estimates
of
the
commercial
and
recreation
value
of
the
impacted
species
and
the
other
species
which
depend
on
them
as
a
food
source.
EPA
assumes
the
biologists
contracted
to
do
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
would
take
the
lead
on
developing
the
monetized
benefit
estimates
to
develop
a
comprehensive
valuation
of
the
current
impacts
from
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
derived
from
reducing
the
impact
to
commercial
and
recreational
species
residing
in
the
source
water.
The
junior
technical
staff
would
assist
the
biologist
to
develop
and
revise
the
monetized
benefit
estimates.
A
statistician
would
help
with
the
development
of
present
value
estimates
for
the
technology
costs
and
the
monetized
benefits
so
that
they
can
be
compared.
Facility
management
and
the
contracted
manager
would
review
and
revise
the
work.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.

Identification
and
Description
of
Quantitative
and
non­
Monetized
Benefits
Facilities
choosing
to
demonstrate
that
their
costs
would
be
significantly
greater
than
the
benefits
of
complying
with
the
otherwise
applicable
requirements
would
use
a
comprehensive
methodology
to
fully
value
the
impacts
of
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
at
the
site
and
the
benefits
achievable
by
compliance
with
the
applicable
requirements.
To
compare
benefits
to
costs,
the
facility
would
have
cost
estimates.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
would
use
the
cost
information
from
Comprehensive
Cost
67
November
24,
2004
Evaluation
for
this
purpose.
To
begin
assessment
of
potential
benefits,
the
facility
would
need
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
resulting
from
use
of
the
proposed
technology
at
the
facility.
EPA
assumes
that
the
facility
would
use
the
estimates
of
impingement
and
entrainment
reductions
from
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
for
this
purpose.
The
facility
would
then
estimate
the
potential
recreational
and
commercial
value
of
these
organisms
over
the
same
period
of
time
that
it
would
be
paying
for
the
proposed
technology.

EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
review
mortality
data
derived
from
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
and
develop
a
list
of
species,
their
impacted
life
stages,
and
corresponding
mortality
and
injury
reduction
estimates.
The
facility
manager
would
review
and
revise
this
list.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.

Site­
Specific
Technology
Plan
This
plan
is
based
on
the
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study,
and
the
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
if
one
was
performed
by
the
facility.
It
describes
the
design
and
operation
of
all
design
and
construction
technologies,
operational
measures,
and
restoration
measures
selected,
and
provides
information
that
demonstrates
the
effectiveness
of
the
selected
technologies
or
measures
for
reducing
the
impacts
on
the
species
of
concern.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.

EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
develop
a
narrative
description
of
the
technologies
and
measures
selected
by
the
facility.
The
facility
manager
would
review
and
revise
this
description.
The
facility
would
document
the
efficacy
of
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
or
operational
measures
for
reducing
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
of
all
life
stages
of
fish
and
shellfish.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
document
the
efficacy
of
the
technologies
or
measures
based
on
the
information
used
to
support
a
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available,
and
results
from
representative
studies
and/
or
site­
specific
pilot
studies.
Facility
management
would
review
and
revise
this
document.

Both
the
narrative
description
and
the
documentation
of
efficacy
for
the
proposed
technology
or
measures
would
require
engineering
calculations,
design
estimates,
and
drawings.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
perform
this
engineering
work
and
facility
management
would
review
and
revise
it.
In
addition,
a
biologist
would
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
with
the
efficacy
calculations,
and
the
contract
manager
would
review
the
work.
As
with
the
site
specific
determination,
these
costs
are
only
incurred
by
the
facility
when
they
voluntarily
choose
this
option.
Therefore,
they
are
not
included
in
the
aggregate
facility
cost
estimate.
68
November
24,
2004
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
(
For
Existing
Manufacturing
Facilities
Only)

As
part
of
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
existing
manufacturers
would
include
a
plan
to
conduct,
at
a
minimum,
two
years
of
monitoring
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures,
or
restoration
measures.
EPA
assumes
that
the
junior
technical
staff
would
write
a
plan
that
describes
the
frequency
and
duration
for
monitoring,
the
locations
to
be
monitored,
the
basis
for
determining
the
locations,
and
the
information
that
would
be
included
in
the
final
report.
A
CAD
operator
would
assist
the
junior
technical
staff
with
the
drawings
and
diagrams
contained
in
the
plan.
The
facility
management
would
oversee
the
writing
of
the
plan
and
review/
revise
the
various
drafts
of
the
plan
before
it
is
finalized.

In
the
first
two
years
of
operation
under
their
reissued
NPDES
permits,
existing
facilities
are
required
to
use
impingement
and
entrainment
monitoring
data
to
perform
verification
studies
(
as
described
in
their
Verification
Monitoring
Plans)
to
verify
the
full­
scale
performance
of
the
proposed
or
implemented
technologies,
operational
measures
and/
or
restoration
measures.
It
is
assumed
that
facilities
begin
verification
monitoring
when
they
receive
their
permits,
monitor
for
2
years,
and
submit
the
monitoring
results
and
study
analysis
at
the
beginning
of
the
third
year.
Thus,
EPA
assumes
that
Directors
would
not
be
reviewing
any
verification
studies
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

Annual
Facility
Activities
The
principle
annual
activity
for
most
facilities
would
be
biological
monitoring.
Burden
estimates
for
annual
biological
monitoring
are
less
than
those
for
the
Impingement
and
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
performed
by
some
facilities
as
part
of
the
permit
application
process.
Biological
monitoring
is
assumed
to
be
performed
at
one
location
on
a
monthly
basis
for
impingement
and
on
a
biweekly
basis
for
entrainment.
For
the
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico,
annual
monitoring
is
assumed
to
be
included
as
part
of
the
regional
study.
Since
the
initial
monitoring
for
the
study
occurs
over
a
three
year
period,
annual
monitoring
does
not
begin
until
after
the
fourth
year
which
is
outside
of
the
ICR
approval
period.

The
monitoring
results
are
analyzed
and
summarized
in
a
yearly
status
report
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
Existing
manufacturers
submit
the
status
reports
biennially.
Those
facilities
that
submitted
a
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
as
part
of
their
permit
application
would
also
use
the
first
two
years
of
monitoring
data
to
produce
a
verification
study.
For
a
more
detailed
account
of
the
annual
burden
for
facilities
see
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
2
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
and
Exhibit
B.
2
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
69
November
24,
2004
Director
Burdens
The
Phase
III
proposed
rule
would
require
Directors
to
devote
time
and
resources
to
review
and
respond
to
the
NPDES
permit
applications;
proposal,
study
and
sampling
plans;
and
biannual
or
annual
status
reports
submitted
to
them
as
required.
EPA
assumed
that
all
NPDES
permit
program
Directors
would
also
undergo
start­
up
activities
in
preparation
for
administering
the
provisions
of
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule.
As
part
of
these
start­
up
activities,
Directors
are
expected
to
train
junior
technical
staff
on
how
to
review
materials
submitted
by
facilities,
and
then
use
these
materials
to
determine
the
specific
conditions
of
each
facility's
NPDES
permit
with
regard
to
its
cooling
water
intake
structure.
In
addition,
EPA
assumes
that
senior
and
junior
technical
staff
would
spend
time
to
study
and
understand
the
rule
and
in
planning
activities.

Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
EPA
expects
that
State
senior
technical,
junior
technical,
and
clerical
staff
would
devote
time
toward
gathering,
preparing,
and
submitting
the
various
documents.
EPA
assumed
burden
estimates
that
reflect
the
staffing
and
expertise
used
by
States
for
the
NPDES
permit
administration
process.
In
doing
this,
EPA
considered
the
time
and
qualifications
necessary
to
complete
various
tasks
such
as:
reviewing
submitted
documents
and
supporting
materials,
verifying
data
sources,
planning
responses,
determining
specific
permit
requirements,
writing
the
actual
permit,
conferring
with
facilities
and
the
interested
public,
and
entering
the
permit
information
into
the
PCS
database.
Exhibits
12
and
13
provide
a
summary
of
the
hourly
burden
estimates
for
Directors
performing
various
activities
associated
with
the
proposed
rule
for
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
respectively.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
Director
hourly
burdens,
see
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
3
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibit
B.
3
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
Directors
would
need
to
review
information
submitted
by
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
for
consistency
with
§
125.136
of
the
proposed
rule.
70
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
12.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
100
100
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
810
716
1,330
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)*
21
21
21
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
50
50
Total**
981
887
1,501
*
Since
facilities
would
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
would
incur
burden
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

**
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Exhibit
13.
Average
Director
Burden
for
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
281
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
Total*
431
*
The
total
does
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Cooling
Water
Intake
Structure
Requirements
The
Director
would
review
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
to
evaluate
the
suitability
and
feasibility
of
the
technology
or
operational
measures
proposed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103.
In
addition,
if
the
facility
proposes
restoration
measures,
the
Director
would
review
the
Restoration
Plan
and
determine
whether
the
proposed
measures,
alone
or
in
combination
with
design
and
construction
technologies
and
operational
measures,
would
meet
the
performance
standards.
For
all
facilities
performing
the
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study,
the
Director
would
review
and
approve
the
proposed
Verification
Monitoring
Plan,
as
applicable
and
require
that
the
monitoring
71
November
24,
2004
continue
for
a
sufficient
period
of
time
to
demonstrate
that
the
design
and
construction
technology,
operational
measures,
and/
or
restoration
measures
meet
the
requirements
of
§
125.103(
b)
and
(
d).
For
a
facility
that
requests
requirements
based
on
site­
specific
best
technology
available
for
minimizing
adverse
environmental
impact,
the
Director
would
review
the
application
materials
submitted
and
any
other
information,
including
quantitative
and
qualitative
benefits,
that
would
be
relevant
to
a
determination
of
whether
alternative
requirements
are
appropriate
for
the
facility.
In
determining
the
Director
burden
for
review
of
site­
specific
determination,
it
is
assumed
that
all
facilities
with
both
impingement
and
entrainment
requirements
would
choose
to
pursue
the
site­
specific
alternative.
In
developing
performance
requirements
for
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
for
inclusion
in
a
permit,
the
Director
would
review
information
on
proposed
methods
submitted
by
the
facility,
evaluate
those
proposed
by
the
facility
and
other
available
methods,
and
specify
how
compliance
with
the
requirements
would
be
determined
including
the
averaging
period
for
determining
the
percent
reduction
required
by
the
performance
standards
and
restoration
requirements.

EPA
assumes
that
the
Directors
would
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
studies
and
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plans
and
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plans.
A
significant
amount
of
review
time
is
also
expected
for
those
facilities
that
choose
to
request
site­
specific
determinations
of
best
technology
available
to
review
the
required
supporting
studies.
The
additional
effort
devoted
to
reviewing
the
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment
characterization
studies
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
studies
cover
multiple
years
worth
of
data
collected
at
the
site.
The
additional
effort
devoted
to
reviewing
the
information
to
support
site­
specific
determination
of
best
technology
available
is
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
required
Comprehensive
Cost
Evaluation
Study
or
valuation
of
monetized
benefits
for
reducing
impingement
and
entrainment.

In
addition,
EPA
assumes
that
Directors
would
spend
a
significant
amount
of
time
reviewing
restoration
measures
for
roughly
10
percent
of
the
facilities.

Monitoring
Conditions
In
determining
the
applicable
monitoring
requirements,
the
Director
would
consider
the
facility's
Verification
Monitoring
Plan,
as
applicable
and
modify
the
monitoring
program
based
on
changes
to
the
physical
or
biological
conditions
in
the
vicinity
of
the
cooling
water
intake
structure.
The
requirement
for
modifying
the
monitoring
program
may
be
made
during
the
term
of
the
permit
or
when
the
permit
is
reissued.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
would
review
the
facility's
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
and
make
recommendations
for
modifying
the
monitoring
program.
Senior
technical
staff
would
review
and
implement
the
recommendations.
72
November
24,
2004
Record
Keeping
and
Reporting
EPA
assumes
that
clerical
and
junior
technical
staff
would
review
the
monitoring
data
and
status
report
from
the
facilities
regarding
record
keeping.
Senior
technical
personnel
would
oversee
their
work.

Design
and
Construction
Technology
Approval
For
facilities
choosing
to
demonstrate
that
they
have
installed
and
properly
operate
and
maintain
a
design
and
construction
technology
approved
in
accordance
with
§
125.108,
the
Director
would
review
the
information
submitted
in
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
and/
or
the
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
and
determine
if
they
meet
the
criteria
in
§
125.108.
EPA
assumes
that
junior
technical
staff
would
review
the
documentation
submitted
by
the
facility
for
compliance
as
required
in
§
125.104(
b)(
6).
Senior
technical
staff
would
provide
technical
oversight
for
this
work.
Moreover,
if
a
person
requests
approval
of
a
technology
under
§
125.108(
b),
the
Director
would
review
the
information
submitted
and
determine
its
suitability
for
widespread
use
at
facilities
with
similar
site
conditions
in
its
jurisdiction
with
minimal
study.
The
Director
would
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
the
technology
when
installed
in
accordance
with
the
required
design
criteria
and
site
conditions
to
consistently
meet
the
performance
requirements
in
§
125.103.
The
Director
would
only
approve
a
technology
following
public
notice
and
consideration
of
comment
regarding
such
approval.
EPA
assumes
that
senior
technical
staff
would
review
the
information
submitted
and
evaluate
the
adequacy
of
the
proposed
technology.
Junior
technical
staff
would
work
under
the
technical
direction
of
senior
personnel
in
this
regard
and
provide
assistance
in
reviewing
and
compiling
the
public
comments
received.

Annual
Director
Activities
Facilities
required
to
perform
annual
biological
monitoring
for
impingement
and
entrainment
are
required
to
submit
an
annual
report,
which
details
inspection
and
maintenance
records
for
impingement
and
technology
controls
and
a
detailed
analysis
of
monitoring
results.
EPA
assumes
that
directors
would
use
these
reports
to
track
facility
compliance
and
to
determine
if
a
reduction
in
monitoring
frequency
is
appropriate.

6b.
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
This
section
describes
cost
estimates
for
facilities
and
Directors,
as
well
as
the
methods
used
to
derive
them.
The
cost
estimates
include
both
initial
permitting
costs
and
annual
cost
for
facilities
and
Directors.
Because
of
the
five
year
permit
cycle
facilities
and
Directors
would
not
incur
repermitting
costs
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Therefore,
repermitting
costs
are
not
covered
in
this
section.
For
detailed
estimates
of
re­
permitting
costs
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
12
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
13
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
73
November
24,
2004
and
Exhibits
B.
12
and
B.
13
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.

6b(
i).
Estimating
Labor
Costs
The
costs
to
the
respondent
facilities
associated
with
the
ICR
activities
can
be
estimated
by
multiplying
the
time
spent
in
each
labor
category
by
an
appropriately
loaded
hourly
wage
rate.
All
base
wage
rates
used
for
facility
labor
categories
were
derived
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistic's
(
BLS)
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2004­
2005
(
BLS,
2004a).
These
reported
labor
rates
were
based
upon
data
from
the
year
2002,
and
required
adjustment
for
inflation.
Inflation
factor
were
derived
from
the
BLS
Employment
Cost
Index
(
BLS,
2004b),
was
used
to
adjust
the
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
labor
rates
to
reflect
labor
rates
for
June
of
2003.

Compensatory
loading
factors
ranging
from
35%
to
52%,
depending
on
the
labor
category,
were
used
to
account
for
any
paid
leave,
supplemental
pay,
insurance,
retirement
and
savings,
and
required
and
nonrequired
benefits
received
by
employees
(
BLS,
2004b).
EPA
assumed
an
additional
loading
factor
of
15%
to
account
for
general
overhead
costs
directly
attributable
to
facility
employees
performing
work
in
support
of
the
permit
process.
Expenses
for
contracted
employees
typically
include
higher
overhead
costs,
as
well
as
fee
to
ensure
profit
for
the
contracting
company.
EPA
assumes
that
the
overhead
for
the
contracted
employees
would
be
50%
and
the
fee
would
be
8%.

To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
facility
management,
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
an
engineering
manager
of
$
89,565
per
year.
This
figure
was
divided
by
2,080
hours
to
derive
the
hourly
managerial
wage
rate
of
approximately
$
43
per
hour.
After
adjusting
this
rate
for
inflation,
compensation
and
overhead,
the
rate
is
approximately
$
73
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
of
$
41,288
for
an
engineering
technician
was
used
to
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
junior
technical
staff.
After
determining
the
hourly
wage
rate
and
adjusting
for
inflation
and
other
factors,
this
labor
rate
was
approximately
$
34
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
drafter
performing
CAD
work
was
reported
to
be
$
18
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
and
loading
the
rate
it
is
approximately
$
30.
The
reported
average
annual
salary
for
clerical
workers
was
$
22,277,
and
the
fully
adjusted
and
loaded
hourly
rate
is
approximately
$
19
per
hour.

To
represent
the
base
labor
rate
for
a
contracted
manager
of
monitoring
work
done
onsite
EPA
used
the
average
national
salary
for
a
natural
sciences
manager
of
$
82,243
per
year,
with
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
91
per
hour.
The
median
annual
salary
for
a
statistician
was
$
57,075
per
year,
with
an
adjusted
hourly
rate
of
approximately
$
61
per
hour.
Biologists
and
biological
technicians
had
an
average
hourly
pay
of
$
24
and
$
17,
and
a
fully
loaded
rate
of
$
53
and
$
38,
respectively.
74
November
24,
2004
Director
Labor
Costs
For
Director
costs,
all
of
the
base
labor
rates
and
compensation
factors
were
derived
from
published
employment
cost
trends
for
State
and
local
government
workers
for
the
second
quarter
of
2003
(
BLS,
2004c).
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
specialist
to
represent
the
senior
administrative
and
technical
staff
that
would
oversee
and
manage
the
NPDES
permit
program.
The
base
hourly
rate
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
32
per
hour,
and
after
adjusting
for
compensation
and
inflation
it
is
approximately
$
50
per
hour.

Similarly,
EPA
chose
the
BLS
labor
category
of
white­
collar
professional
technical
to
represent
the
junior
technical
staff
that
EPA
expects
to
perform
the
majority
of
the
actual
NPDES
permitting
work.
The
reported
base
pay
for
this
category
was
approximately
$
19
per
hour,
which
becomes
approximately
$
32
per
hour
after
being
adjusted
for
compensation,
overhead,
and
inflation.
The
hourly
wage
for
State
government
clerical
workers
was
$
14
per
hour
before
adjustment,
and
approximately
$
24
afterward.

6b(
ii).
Estimating
Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
Costs
A
facility
incurs
capital/
start­
up
costs
when
it
purchases
equipment
or
builds
structures
that
are
needed
for
compliance
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
and
that
the
facility
would
not
use
otherwise.
A
facility
incurs
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
when
it
uses
services,
materials,
or
supplies
that
are
needed
to
comply
with
the
rule's
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
and
that
the
facility
would
not
use
otherwise.
Any
costs
for
the
operation
and
upkeep
of
capital
equipment
are
considered
O&
M
costs.
Another
type
of
O&
M
cost
is
for
the
purchase
of
contracted
services,
such
as
laboratory
analyses.
The
purchase
of
supplies
such
as
filing
cabinets
and
services
such
as
photocopying
or
boat
rental
are
also
considered
O&
M
costs,
and
are
referred
to
as
other
direct
costs
(
ODCs).

As
part
of
the
evaluation
of
potential
cooling
water
intake
structure
effects
performed
under
the
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan,
EPA
anticipates
that
facilities
would
perform
pilot
studies
to
estimate
efficacy
for
the
proposed
and/
or
implemented
technologies
used
to
minimize
impingement
mortality
and
entrainment.
EPA
assumes
that
these
facilities
would
be
willing
to
spend
approximately
10%
of
the
anticipated
costs
of
installing
and
operating
the
proposed
technologies.
As
part
of
the
economic
analysis
for
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
has
developed
technology
cost
estimates
for
those
facilities
that
EPA
anticipates
would
install
new
technologies.
If
the
efficacy
of
a
proposed
technology
is
well
documented
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
located
in
the
same
waterbody
type
with
similar
biological
characteristics,
the
facility
may
choose
to
rely
on
existing
information.
EPA
considers
the
effectiveness
and
reliability
of
wedgewire
screen
technology
in
freshwater
environments
to
be
sufficiently
well
documented.
Therefore,
those
freshwater
facilities
installing
or
operating
wedgewire
screen
technology
are
assumed
to
rely
upon
existing
information
and
forego
the
pilot
study.
75
November
24,
2004
Average
pilot
study
capital
costs
are
expected
to
range
from
$
150,000
to
$
900,000,
including
the
cost
of
monitoring,
depending
on
the
technology
installed
and
the
waterbody
location.
However,
for
a
facility
to
conduct
a
pilot
study,
EPA
assumed
that
the
minimum
pilot
study
cost,
including
monitoring,
would
be
$
150,000.
EPA
assumes
the
pilot
study
impingement
samples
would
be
analyzed
on­
site
by
the
biologists,
due
to
the
difficulty
of
preserving
impingement
samples
for
shipment
to
an
outside
laboratory.
Analysis
of
the
pilot
study
entrainment
samples
would
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory,
at
a
cost
of
$
6,000
for
freshwater
facilities
and
$
7,800
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
Pilot
study
ODC
costs
are
assumed
to
be
approximately
$
1,000
for
materials
and
supplies
used
by
facilities
conducting
pilot
studies.

EPA
assumes
that
samples
taken
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
would
be
analyzed
by
a
contracted
laboratory.
The
outside
laboratories
would
perform
taxonomic
classification,
data
tabulation,
and
then
deliver
the
data
back
to
the
facility.
For
the
monitoring
required
by
the
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study,
this
service
is
estimated
to
cost
$
78,000
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
$
152,100
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.
For
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs,
ODCs
are
estimated
to
range
from
approximately
$
4,300
and
$
13,000
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.

For
annual
O&
M
costs,
EPA
again
assumes
that
the
analysis
of
impingement
monitoring
samples
would
be
done
on­
site,
while
entrainment
monitoring
samples
would
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory.
Laboratory
analysis
for
entrainment
samples
is
estimated
to
cost
$
7,800
per
year
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
an
estimated
$
10,140
per
year
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
estuaries/
tidal
rivers,
the
Great
Lakes,
or
oceans.
The
ODCs
associated
with
biological
monitoring
in
freshwater
rivers/
streams
or
lakes/
reservoirs
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
500
annually
and
$
650
for
facilities
with
cooling
water
intake
structure(
s)
located
in
the
Great
Lakes,
estuaries/
tidal
rivers
or
oceans.

In
general,
the
labor
costs
and
O&
M
costs
reported
in
this
analysis
are
assumed
to
represent
typical
average
national
cost
estimates
that
are
likely
to
be
incurred
by
existing
facilities
and
by
permitting
authorities.
EPA
attempted
to
take
into
account
various
factors
such
as
decreases
in
labor
efficiency
that
occur
during
extreme
climate
conditions,
equipment
down
time,
and
the
occasional
sample
that
might
need
to
be
replaced
because
it
was
lost
or
spoiled
during
transport.
Exhibits
14,
15
and
16
provide
a
summary
of
facility
level
average
labor
costs,
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
permit
application
activities
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
over
the
three
year
ICR
period.
Exhibit
17
provides
a
summary
of
facility
level
average
labor
costs,
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
permit
application
activities
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
76
November
24,
2004
over
the
three
year
ICR
period.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
all
compliance
costs
for
facilities,
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
1
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
2
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
1
and
B.
2
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.

Exhibit
14.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
Capital
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,121
$
0
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
247
$
9,951
$
0
$
510
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
$
12,344
$
0
$
770
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
101
$
3,447
$
0
$
200
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
­
Impingement
and
Entrainment
80
$
3,118
$
0
$
380
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
9,089
$
428,557
$
0
$
84,428
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
16,783
$
782,249
$
0
$
163,834
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology*
na
na
na
na
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,556
$
79,887
$
165,321
$
7,020
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
1,185
$
59,059
$
242,872
$
1,020
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
$
93,541
$
469,073
$
8,820
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
52
$
2,372
$
0
$
80
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
$
5,918
$
0
$
410
Total**
31,395
$
1,482,564
$
877,266
$
267,522
*
During
the
initial
ICR
approval
period,
no
facilities
were
identified
which
required
pilot
study
costs
for
Freshwater
Impingement
only
and
these
activities
were
not
costed.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
77
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
15.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
Capital
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,121
$
0
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
247
$
9,951
$
0
$
510
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
$
12,344
$
0
$
770
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
100
$
3,381
$
0
$
200
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
86
$
3,384
$
0
$
380
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
9,089
$
428,557
$
0
$
84,428
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
16,783
$
782,249
$
0
$
163,834
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology*
na
na
na
na
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,556
$
79,887
$
804,252
$
7,020
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology
na
na
na
na
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
$
93,541
$
183,241
$
8,820
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
52
$
2,372
$
0
$
80
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
$
5,918
$
0
$
410
Total**
30,215
$
1,423,705
$
987,493
$
266,502
*
During
the
initial
ICR
approval
period,
no
facilities
were
identified
which
required
pilot
study
costs
for
Freshwater
Impingement
only
and
these
activities
were
not
costed.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
78
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
16.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
Capital
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,121
$
0
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
247
$
9,951
$
0
$
510
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
272
$
12,344
$
0
$
770
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
na
na
na
na
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
92
$
3,657
$
0
$
380
Freshwater
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
9,089
$
428,557
$
0
$
84,428
Marine
Impingement
Mortality
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
16,783
$
782,249
$
0
$
163,834
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology*
na
na
na
na
Freshwater
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology*
na
na
na
na
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
Only
Technology*
na
na
na
na
Marine
Pilot
Study
for
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
1,859
$
93,541
$
221,548
$
8,820
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
52
$
2,372
$
0
$
80
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
128
$
5,918
$
0
$
410
Total**
28,565
$
1,340,710
$
221,548
$
259,282
*
During
the
initial
ICR
approval
period,
no
facilities
were
identified
which
required
pilot
study
costs
for
Freshwater
Impingement
only
and
these
activities
were
not
costed.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
79
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
17.
Average
per
Facility
Burden
and
Costs*
for
each
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activity
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
Capital
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Start­
up
Activities
43
$
2,121
$
0
$
50
Permit
Application
Activities
25
$
795
$
0
$
130
Source
Waterbody
Flow
Information
38
$
1,341
$
0
$
75
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
36
$
1,051
$
0
$
120
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
for
Gulf
of
Mexico
Facilities
751
$
40,445
$
6,000
$
44,397
Source
Water
Baseline
Biological
Characterization
Data
for
Alaska
Facilities
2,422
$
132,041
$
0
$
176,870
Total**
3,315
$
177,794
$
6,000
$
221,642
*
EPA
assumed
that
all
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
would
pursue
Track
I
application
of
today's
proposed
rule
because
it
is
unknown
how
many
facilities
would
select
Track
I
versus
Track
II
application.
Hence
the
actual
burden
and
cost
estimates
may
be
different
than
presented
here.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Exhibits
18,
19
and
20
provide
a
summary
of
facility
level
burden,
average
labor
costs
and
O&
M
costs
for
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities
for
the
three
options
proposed
for
existing
manufacturers
over
the
three
year
ICR
period.
Exhibit
21
provides
a
summary
of
facility
level
burden,
average
labor
costs
and
O&
M
costs
for
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
over
the
three
year
ICR
period.
For
a
more
detailed
presentation
of
all
compliance
costs
for
facilities,
see
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
1
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
2
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
1
and
B.
2
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
80
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
18.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
$
18,504
$
510
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
$
23,564
$
660
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
$
30,376
$
8,310
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
$
38,069
$
10,800
Biannual
Status
Report
Activities
324
$
16,618
$
770
Verification
Study
122
$
6,846
$
510
Total**
2,697
$
133,977
$
21,560
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
burden
and
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Exhibit
19.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
$
18,504
$
510
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
$
23,564
$
660
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
$
30,376
$
8,310
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
$
38,069
$
10,800
Biannual
Status
Report
Activities
324
$
16,618
$
770
Verification
Study
122
$
6,846
$
510
Total**
2,697
$
133,977
$
21,560
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
burden
and
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
81
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
20.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Freshwater)
379
$
18,504
$
510
Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement,
Marine)
482
$
23,564
$
660
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Freshwater)
614
$
30,376
$
8,310
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment,
Marine)
776
$
38,069
$
10,800
Biannual
Status
Report
Activities
324
$
16,618
$
770
Verification
Study
122
$
6,846
$
510
Total**
2,697
$
133,977
$
21,560
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
burden
and
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Exhibit
21.
Average
Burden
and
Costs*
per
Facility
for
Annual
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Biological
Monitoring
(
Impingement)**
159
$
7,747
$
498
Biological
Monitoring
(
Entrainment)**
52
$
1,353
$
2,230
Velocity
Monitoring
163
$
5,692
$
500
Yearly
Status
Report
Activities
223
$
11,304
$
770
Total***
597
$
26,096
$
3,998
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
annual
monitoring
and
reporting
activities.

**
The
cost
of
collecting
biological
monitoring
data
for
impingement
and
entrainment
varies
between
different
operating
regions.
Therefore
the
costs
reported
here
is
a
weighted
average
for
facilities
in
Alaska
and
the
Gulf
of
Mexico.

***
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
burden
and
costs
for
every
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed,
e.
g.,
MODUs
are
not
required
to
conduct
monitoring
except
as
determined
by
the
Director.

Director
O&
M
Costs
Under
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
operation
and
maintenance
costs
other
than
ODCs
for
Directors.
Exhibits
22,
23
and
24
provide
estimates
of
average
Director
labor
costs
and
ODCs
for
existing
manufacturers
and
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
Exhibit
25
provides
estimates
of
average
Director
labor
costs
and
82
November
24,
2004
ODCs
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
For
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
Director
costs,
see
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
3
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibit
B.
3
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.

Exhibit
22.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
$
3,894
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
810
$
36,282
$
310
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)**
21
$
768
$
10
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,851
$
30
Total***
981
$
42,795
$
400
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
director
activities.

**
Since
facilities
must
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
would
incur
burden
and
costs
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

***
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
and
costs
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
83
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
23.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
$
3,894
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
716
$
31,817
$
310
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)**
21
$
768
$
10
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,851
$
30
Total***
887
$
38,330
$
400
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
director
activities.

**
Since
facilities
must
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
would
incur
burden
and
costs
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

***
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
and
costs
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

Exhibit
24.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
for
the
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
State/
Territory)
100
$
3,894
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
1,330
$
60,163
$
310
Verification
Study
Review
(
per
Facility)**
21
$
768
$
10
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,851
$
30
Total***
1,501
$
66,676
$
400
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
director
activities.

**
Since
facilities
must
monitor
for
at
least
two
years
before
submitting
their
verification
study
for
review,
EPA
does
not
anticipate
that
Directors
would
incur
burden
and
costs
for
this
activity
during
the
initial
ICR
approval
period.

***
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
and
costs
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.
84
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
25.
Average
Director
Burden
and
Costs*
for
Activities
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M
(
2003$)

Director
Start­
up
Activities
(
per
EPA
Region)
100
$
3,894
$
50
Director
Permit
Issuance
Activities
(
per
Facility)
281
$
11,668
$
310
Annual
Director
Activities
(
per
Facility)
50
$
1,851
$
30
Total**
431
$
17,413
$
390
*
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
the
director
activities.

**
The
totals
do
not
reflect
the
average
director
burden
and
costs
for
each
facility
since
not
all
facilities
would
need
to
perform
every
activity
listed.

6c.
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
As
mentioned
previously,
there
are
46
States
and
Territories
authorized
to
administer
the
NPDES
permitting
program.
For
in­
scope
facilities
applying
for
reissued
permits
in
the
10
unauthorized
States
and
Territories,
EPA
would
incur
costs
and
burdens
similar
to
those
incurred
by
States
with
permitting
authority.
This
analysis,
however,
assumes
that
facilities
complying
with
the
rule
during
the
ICR
approval
period
would
be
in
NPDESauthorized
States.

EPA
typically
reviews
NPDES
permits
in
the
early
stages
of
implementation
of
new
regulations.
This
review
ensures
that
the
key
provisions
of
the
rule
are
implemented
properly
by
the
States.
Based
on
historical
reports
submitted
for
316(
b)
demonstrations,
EPA
assumes
that
it
would
take
about
39
hours
on
average
to
perform
a
detailed
review,
make
comments,
and
follow
up
on
comments
for
the
316(
b)
portions
of
a
State­
issued
NPDES
permit.
Exhibit
26
summarizes
Federal
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers.
The
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
will
submit
their
permit
application
to
the
EPA
region
within
which
they
reside.
Therefore,
there
are
no
additional
costs
incurred
by
the
Federal
government
for
these
facilities.
Further
detail
is
provided
in
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
4
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers.
85
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
26.
Estimating
Federal
Burden
and
Costs
for
Activities
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Activities
Burden
(
hrs)
Labor
Cost
(
2003$)
O&
M(
2003$)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
(
per
Permitted
Facility)
39
$
1,422
$
50
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
(
per
Permitted
Facility)
36
$
1,321
$
50
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Federal
Permit
Program
Oversight
Activities
(
per
Permitted
Facility)
48
$
1,782
$
50
6d.
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Under
the
proposed
50
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option,
during
the
first
three
years
after
promulgation,
there
are
an
estimated
87
facilities
along
with
46
States
and
Territories
that
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
rule
would
affect.
Under
the
proposed
200
MGD
for
all
waterbodies
option,
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule
would
affect
44
facilities
with
46
States.
The
number
of
facilities
and
States
affected
by
the
proposed
Phase
III
rule
would
be
42
and
46,
respectively
under
the
100
MGD
for
certain
waterbodies
option.
The
rule
would
require
each
respondent
to
comply
with
one
or
more
provisions.
In
turn,
each
provision
has
numerous
activities
associated
with
it.
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
5
and
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
6
in
Appendix
A
(
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities)
and
Exhibits
B.
5
and
B.
6
in
Appendix
B
(
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities)
provide
an
estimate
of
the
number
of
respondents
and
responses
expected
for
each
provision
of
the
rule
during
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.
The
annual
estimates
are
based
on
the
compliance
schedule
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
the
rule.
In
addition,
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
7­
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
10
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibits
B.
7­
B.
10
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
provide
a
summary
of
the
respondent
burdens
and
costs
for
each
year
of
the
ICR
approval
period.
These
estimates
were
calculated
by
multiplying
facility
and
Director
level
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
Exhibits
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
1­
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
3
by
the
number
of
respondents
performing
each
activity
in
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
5
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
by
multiplying
facility
and
Director
level
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
Exhibits
B.
1­
B.
3
by
the
number
of
respondents
performing
each
activity
in
Exhibits
B.
5
for
new
offshore
oil
and
86
November
24,
2004
gas
extraction
facilities
(
see
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities).

6e.
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Tables
This
section
provides
a
description
of
bottom
line
data
collection
and
record
keeping
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
implementation
of
the
proposed
rule.

6e(
i).
Respondent
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
facilities
and
Directors
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Exhibit
27
provides
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
number
of
respondents,
burden
hours,
and
costs
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
State
Directors.
Similarly,
Exhibit
28
shows
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
number
of
respondents,
burden
hours,
and
costs
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
facilities.
The
burden
and
cost
for
the
three
EPA
regions
handling
the
offshore
oil
and
gas
NPDES
general
permits
is
also
included
in
Exhibit
28.
These
EPA
regional
offices
are
considered
part
of
the
Federal
government,
and
the
burden
to
the
Federal
government
is
typically
considered
separately
from
the
burden
to
States
and
Facilities.
However,
it
has
been
included
here
because
of
their
role
as
the
NPDES
permitting
authority.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
11
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers
and
Exhibit
B.
11
in
Appendix
B
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.
87
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
27.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
State
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Average
Annual
Respondent
s
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2003$)
Average
Annual
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
(
2003$)
Total
Annual
Costs
(
2003$)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Facilities
38
185,514
$
8,713,868
$
2,224,340
$
10,938,208
State
Directors
43
16,972
$
747,981
$
6,823
$
754,804
Totals
81
202,486
$
9,461,849
$
2,231,163
$
11,693,012
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Facilities
8
44,203
$
2,076,359
$
878,723
$
2,955,082
State
Directors
21
4,677
$
198,932
$
2,160
$
201,092
Totals
29
48,880
$
2,275,291
$
880,883
$
3,156,174
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Facilities
10
65,695
$
3,083,569
$
1,046,490
$
4,130,059
State
Directors
23
6,528
$
284,624
$
1,973
$
286,597
Totals
33
72,223
$
3,368,193
$
1,048,463
$
4,416,656
Exhibit
28.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Respondents,
Burden,
and
Costs
for
Facilities
and
EPA
Regional
Directors
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Average
Annual
Respondents
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2003$)
Average
Annual
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
(
2003$)
Total
Annual
Costs
(
2003$)

Facilities
22
11,238
$
569,343
$
573,968
$
1,143,311
Directors
(
EPA
Region)
3
2,161
$
88,169
$
2,213
$
90,382
Totals
25
13,399
$
657,512
$
576,181
$
1,233,693
6e(
ii).
Agency
Tally
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
Federal
agency
are
the
total
annual
hours
and
costs
collectively
incurred
for
all
activities
during
the
ICR
approval
period.
Exhibits
29
and
30
provide
a
summary
of
the
average
annual
agency
burden
hours,
and
costs.
A
more
detailed
summary
can
be
found
in
Exhibit
A.(
50MGD,
200MGD,
or
100MGD).
11
in
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
and
88
November
24,
2004
Exhibit
B.
11
for
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities.

Exhibit
29.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
Existing
Manufacturers
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2003$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2003$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2003$)

50
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Agency
Totals
721
$
26,548
$
933
$
27,481
200
MGD
All
Waterbodies
Option
Agency
Totals
152
$
5,577
$
217
$
5,794
100
MGD
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
Agency
Totals
187
$
6,902
$
183
$
7,085
Exhibit
30.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
for
New
Offshore
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Facilities
Average
Annual
Burden
(
hours)
Average
Annual
Labor
Costs
(
2003$)
Average
Annual
O&
M
Costs
(
2003$)
Total
Average
Annual
Costs
(
2003$)

Agency
Totals
2,161
$
88,169
$
2,213
$
90,382
6f.
Reasons
For
Change
In
Burden
The
change
in
burden
results
from
proposed
regulatory
changes
that
require
information
collection
and
record
keeping
activities.
These
proposed
regulatory
changes
partially
fulfill
EPA's
obligation
to
comply
with
the
consent
agreement
entered
in
Cronin
v.
Browner,
93
Civ.
0314
(
AGS)
S.
D.
N.
Y.,
filed
Oct.
10,
1995,
and
amended
in
Riverkeeper,
Inc.
v.
Leavitt,
filed
November
21,
2000.
These
agreements
require
that
EPA
propose
and
finalize
regulations
that
implement
section
316(
b)
of
the
CWA
by
specified
dates.
Today's
proposed
rule
is
a
direct
result
of
the
consent
agreement
requirements.
89
November
24,
2004
6g.
Burden
Statement
50
MGD
For
All
Waterbodies
Option
The
annual
average
burden
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
185,514
hours
for
an
average
of
38
facilities
(
Exhibit
A.
50MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
existing
facilities,
the
annual
average
burden
is
11,238
hours
for
an
average
of
22
facilities
(
Exhibit
B.
11,
Appendix
B).
This
results
in
a
total
of
196,752
hours
of
burden
for
an
average
of
60
facilities.
Hence,
the
annual
average
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
collection
of
information
by
facilities
responding
to
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
is
estimated
to
be
3,279
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
196,752
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
60
facilities).

Similarly,
the
annual
average
burden
for
Director
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
16,972
hours
for
an
average
of
43
States
(
Exhibit
A.
50MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
the
permitting
process
is
handled
directly
by
EPA
Regions
4,
6,
and
10.
Since
this
burden
is
incurred
by
the
Federal
Government
rather
than
the
States,
it
is
not
included
as
part
of
the
burden
statement
for
State
Directors.
Hence,
the
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
395
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
16,972
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
43
States
on
average
per
year).

200
MGD
For
All
Waterbodies
Option
The
annual
average
burden
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
44,203
hours
for
an
average
of
8
facilities
(
Exhibit
A.
200MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
existing
facilities,
the
annual
average
burden
is
11,238
hours
for
an
average
of
22
facilities
(
Exhibit
B.
11,
Appendix
B).
This
results
in
a
total
of
55,442
hours
of
burden
for
an
average
of
30
facilities.
Hence,
the
annual
average
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
collection
of
information
by
facilities
responding
to
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
is
estimated
to
be
1,848
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
55,441
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
30
facilities).

Similarly,
the
annual
average
burden
for
Director
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
4,677
hours
for
an
average
of
21
States
(
Exhibit
A.
200MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
the
permitting
process
is
handled
directly
by
EPA
Regions
4,
6,
and
10.
Since
this
burden
is
incurred
by
the
Federal
Government
rather
than
the
States,
it
is
not
included
as
part
of
the
burden
statement
for
State
Directors.
Hence,
the
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
90
November
24,
2004
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
223
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
4,677
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
21
States
on
average
per
year).

100
MGD
For
Certain
Waterbodies
Option
The
annual
average
burden
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
65,695
hours
for
an
average
of
10
facilities
(
Exhibit
A.
100MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
existing
facilities,
the
annual
average
burden
is
11,238
hours
for
an
average
of
22
facilities
(
Exhibit
B.
11,
Appendix
B).
This
results
in
a
total
of
76,933
hours
of
burden
for
an
average
of
32
facilities.
Hence,
the
annual
average
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
collection
of
information
by
facilities
responding
to
the
section
316(
b)
Phase
III
proposed
rule
is
estimated
to
be
2,404
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
76,933
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
annual
average
of
32
facilities).

Similarly,
the
annual
average
burden
for
Director
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
for
existing
manufacturing
facilities
is
6,528
hours
for
an
average
of
23
States
(
Exhibit
A.
100MGD.
11,
Appendix
A
for
the
three
options
considered
for
existing
manufacturers).
For
new
offshore
oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities,
the
permitting
process
is
handled
directly
by
EPA
Regions
4,
6,
and
10.
Since
this
burden
is
incurred
by
the
Federal
Government
rather
than
the
States,
it
is
not
included
as
part
of
the
burden
statement
for
State
Directors.
Hence,
the
Director
reporting
and
record
keeping
burden
for
the
review,
oversight,
and
administration
of
the
rule
is
estimated
to
average
284
hours
per
respondent
(
i.
e.,
an
annual
average
of
6,528
hours
of
burden
divided
among
an
anticipated
23
States
on
average
per
year).

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2004­
0002,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
91
November
24,
2004
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OW­
2004­
0002),
OMB
control
number
(
2040­
NEW)
and
the
EPA
ICR
number
(
2169.01)
in
any
correspondence.
